Cargando…
Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial
BACKGROUND: Several different procedures have been described for surgical treatment of rectal prolapse and consensus on the optimal approach has not been reached. The Swedish Rectal Prolapse Trial was performed with the aim to compare the outcomes after the most common surgical approaches to rectal...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8769527/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35045155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrab140 |
_version_ | 1784635163697741824 |
---|---|
author | Smedberg, J. Graf, W. Pekkari, K. Hjern, F. |
author_facet | Smedberg, J. Graf, W. Pekkari, K. Hjern, F. |
author_sort | Smedberg, J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Several different procedures have been described for surgical treatment of rectal prolapse and consensus on the optimal approach has not been reached. The Swedish Rectal Prolapse Trial was performed with the aim to compare the outcomes after the most common surgical approaches to rectal prolapse. METHOD: A multicentre randomized trial was conducted from 2000 to 2009. Patients were randomized between a perineal or an abdominal approach for correction of rectal prolapse (randomization A) if eligible for any procedures. Patients considered unsuitable for random allocation were only included in randomizations B or C. Patients in randomization B (perineal group) were randomized to Delorme’s or Altemeier’s procedures and those in randomization C (abdominal group) to suture rectopexy or resection rectopexy. Primary outcomes were bowel function and quality of life, measured using Wexner incontinence score and RAND-36, and secondary outcomes were complications and recurrence at 3 years. RESULTS: During the study period, 134 patients were randomized: 18 in randomization A group, 80 in randomization B group and 54 in randomization C group; of these, 122 patients underwent surgery. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years. Improvements in Wexner and RAND-36 scores were seen but with no significant difference between the groups. Health change scores were significantly improved from baseline up to 1 year after surgery (P < 0.001). At 3 years, recurrence rates were two of seven patients for abdominal versus five of eight patients for perineal approach (P = 0.315), 18 of 31 patients (58 per cent) for Delorme’s versus 15 of 30 patients (50 per cent) for Altemeier’s (P = 0.611) and four of 19 patients (21 per cent) for suture rectopexy versus two of 21 patients (10 per cent) for resection rectopexy (P = 0.398). There were no significant differences regarding postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: For all procedures, significant improvements from baseline in health change scores were noted after surgery. Recurrence rates were higher than previously reported. Registration number: NCT04893642 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8769527 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87695272022-01-20 Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial Smedberg, J. Graf, W. Pekkari, K. Hjern, F. BJS Open Randomized Clinical Trial BACKGROUND: Several different procedures have been described for surgical treatment of rectal prolapse and consensus on the optimal approach has not been reached. The Swedish Rectal Prolapse Trial was performed with the aim to compare the outcomes after the most common surgical approaches to rectal prolapse. METHOD: A multicentre randomized trial was conducted from 2000 to 2009. Patients were randomized between a perineal or an abdominal approach for correction of rectal prolapse (randomization A) if eligible for any procedures. Patients considered unsuitable for random allocation were only included in randomizations B or C. Patients in randomization B (perineal group) were randomized to Delorme’s or Altemeier’s procedures and those in randomization C (abdominal group) to suture rectopexy or resection rectopexy. Primary outcomes were bowel function and quality of life, measured using Wexner incontinence score and RAND-36, and secondary outcomes were complications and recurrence at 3 years. RESULTS: During the study period, 134 patients were randomized: 18 in randomization A group, 80 in randomization B group and 54 in randomization C group; of these, 122 patients underwent surgery. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years. Improvements in Wexner and RAND-36 scores were seen but with no significant difference between the groups. Health change scores were significantly improved from baseline up to 1 year after surgery (P < 0.001). At 3 years, recurrence rates were two of seven patients for abdominal versus five of eight patients for perineal approach (P = 0.315), 18 of 31 patients (58 per cent) for Delorme’s versus 15 of 30 patients (50 per cent) for Altemeier’s (P = 0.611) and four of 19 patients (21 per cent) for suture rectopexy versus two of 21 patients (10 per cent) for resection rectopexy (P = 0.398). There were no significant differences regarding postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: For all procedures, significant improvements from baseline in health change scores were noted after surgery. Recurrence rates were higher than previously reported. Registration number: NCT04893642 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). Oxford University Press 2022-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8769527/ /pubmed/35045155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrab140 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Randomized Clinical Trial Smedberg, J. Graf, W. Pekkari, K. Hjern, F. Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial |
title | Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial |
title_full | Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial |
title_fullStr | Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial |
title_short | Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial |
title_sort | comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial |
topic | Randomized Clinical Trial |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8769527/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35045155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrab140 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT smedbergj comparisonoffoursurgicalapproachesforrectalprolapsemulticentrerandomizedclinicaltrial AT grafw comparisonoffoursurgicalapproachesforrectalprolapsemulticentrerandomizedclinicaltrial AT pekkarik comparisonoffoursurgicalapproachesforrectalprolapsemulticentrerandomizedclinicaltrial AT hjernf comparisonoffoursurgicalapproachesforrectalprolapsemulticentrerandomizedclinicaltrial |