Cargando…

The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal approach for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. The aim of this international survey was to assess the patterns in treatment of rectal prolapse. DESIGN: A 23-question survey was distributed to the Pelvic Floor Consortium of the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kelley, Jesse K, Hagen, Edward R, Gurland, Brooke, Stevenson, Andrew RL, Ogilvie, James W
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10649678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38020494
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjsit-2023-000198
_version_ 1785147564873482240
author Kelley, Jesse K
Hagen, Edward R
Gurland, Brooke
Stevenson, Andrew RL
Ogilvie, James W
author_facet Kelley, Jesse K
Hagen, Edward R
Gurland, Brooke
Stevenson, Andrew RL
Ogilvie, James W
author_sort Kelley, Jesse K
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal approach for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. The aim of this international survey was to assess the patterns in treatment of rectal prolapse. DESIGN: A 23-question survey was distributed to the Pelvic Floor Consortium of the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Pelvic Floor Society. Questions pertained to surgeon and practice demographics, preoperative evaluation, procedural preferences, and educational needs. SETTING: Electronic survey distributed to colorectal surgeons of diverse practice settings PARTICIPANTS: 249 colorectal surgeons responded to the survey, 65% of which were male. There was wide variability in age, years in practice, and practice setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to questions regarding preoperative workup preferences and clinical scenarios. RESULTS: In preoperative evaluation, 19% would perform anorectal physiology testing and 70% would evaluate for concomitant pelvic organ prolapse. In a healthy patient, 90% would perform a minimally invasive abdominal approach, including ventral rectopexy (56%), suture rectopexy (31%), mesh rectopexy (6%) and resection rectopexy (5%). In terms of ventral rectopexy, surgeons in the Americas preferred a synthetic mesh (61.9% vs 38.1%, p=0.59) whereas surgeons from Australasia preferred biologic grafts (75% vs 25%, p<0.01). In an older patient with comorbidities 81% would perform a perineal approach. Procedure preference (Delormes vs Altmeier) varied according to location (Australasia, 85.9% vs 14.1%; Europe, 75.3% vs 24.7%; Americas, 14.1% vs 85.9%). Most participants were interested in education regarding surgical approaches, however there is wide variability in preferred methods. CONCLUSION: There is significant variability in the preoperative evaluation and surgery performed for rectal prolapse. Given the lack of consensus, it is not surprising that most surgeons desire further education on the topic.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10649678
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106496782023-11-14 The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse Kelley, Jesse K Hagen, Edward R Gurland, Brooke Stevenson, Andrew RL Ogilvie, James W BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol Original Research OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal approach for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. The aim of this international survey was to assess the patterns in treatment of rectal prolapse. DESIGN: A 23-question survey was distributed to the Pelvic Floor Consortium of the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Pelvic Floor Society. Questions pertained to surgeon and practice demographics, preoperative evaluation, procedural preferences, and educational needs. SETTING: Electronic survey distributed to colorectal surgeons of diverse practice settings PARTICIPANTS: 249 colorectal surgeons responded to the survey, 65% of which were male. There was wide variability in age, years in practice, and practice setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to questions regarding preoperative workup preferences and clinical scenarios. RESULTS: In preoperative evaluation, 19% would perform anorectal physiology testing and 70% would evaluate for concomitant pelvic organ prolapse. In a healthy patient, 90% would perform a minimally invasive abdominal approach, including ventral rectopexy (56%), suture rectopexy (31%), mesh rectopexy (6%) and resection rectopexy (5%). In terms of ventral rectopexy, surgeons in the Americas preferred a synthetic mesh (61.9% vs 38.1%, p=0.59) whereas surgeons from Australasia preferred biologic grafts (75% vs 25%, p<0.01). In an older patient with comorbidities 81% would perform a perineal approach. Procedure preference (Delormes vs Altmeier) varied according to location (Australasia, 85.9% vs 14.1%; Europe, 75.3% vs 24.7%; Americas, 14.1% vs 85.9%). Most participants were interested in education regarding surgical approaches, however there is wide variability in preferred methods. CONCLUSION: There is significant variability in the preoperative evaluation and surgery performed for rectal prolapse. Given the lack of consensus, it is not surprising that most surgeons desire further education on the topic. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10649678/ /pubmed/38020494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjsit-2023-000198 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research
Kelley, Jesse K
Hagen, Edward R
Gurland, Brooke
Stevenson, Andrew RL
Ogilvie, James W
The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse
title The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse
title_full The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse
title_fullStr The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse
title_full_unstemmed The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse
title_short The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse
title_sort international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10649678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38020494
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjsit-2023-000198
work_keys_str_mv AT kelleyjessek theinternationalvariabilityofsurgeryforrectalprolapse
AT hagenedwardr theinternationalvariabilityofsurgeryforrectalprolapse
AT gurlandbrooke theinternationalvariabilityofsurgeryforrectalprolapse
AT stevensonandrewrl theinternationalvariabilityofsurgeryforrectalprolapse
AT ogilviejamesw theinternationalvariabilityofsurgeryforrectalprolapse
AT kelleyjessek internationalvariabilityofsurgeryforrectalprolapse
AT hagenedwardr internationalvariabilityofsurgeryforrectalprolapse
AT gurlandbrooke internationalvariabilityofsurgeryforrectalprolapse
AT stevensonandrewrl internationalvariabilityofsurgeryforrectalprolapse
AT ogilviejamesw internationalvariabilityofsurgeryforrectalprolapse