Primary and repeated perineal stapled prolapse resection

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Primary and repeated perineal stapled prolapse resection. / Raahave, D; Jensen, Andreas Emil Kryger; Dammegaard, L.; Pedersen, I. K.

In: Techniques in Coloproctology, Vol. 20, No. 12, 12.2016, p. 853-857.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Raahave, D, Jensen, AEK, Dammegaard, L & Pedersen, IK 2016, 'Primary and repeated perineal stapled prolapse resection', Techniques in Coloproctology, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 853-857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-016-1557-9

APA

Raahave, D., Jensen, A. E. K., Dammegaard, L., & Pedersen, I. K. (2016). Primary and repeated perineal stapled prolapse resection. Techniques in Coloproctology, 20(12), 853-857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-016-1557-9

Vancouver

Raahave D, Jensen AEK, Dammegaard L, Pedersen IK. Primary and repeated perineal stapled prolapse resection. Techniques in Coloproctology. 2016 Dec;20(12):853-857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-016-1557-9

Author

Raahave, D ; Jensen, Andreas Emil Kryger ; Dammegaard, L. ; Pedersen, I. K. / Primary and repeated perineal stapled prolapse resection. In: Techniques in Coloproctology. 2016 ; Vol. 20, No. 12. pp. 853-857.

Bibtex

@article{7b38a230f983462ebff96b3ddc75ebdd,
title = "Primary and repeated perineal stapled prolapse resection",
abstract = "Background: Previous studies of the outcome after perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSPR) have included a limited number of patients with a short follow-up and high recurrence rates. The present study was designed to assess the initial results, complications, recurrence rate, and outcomes up to 4 years after PSPR, as well as the need for a repeated procedure. Methods: Fifty-four consecutive patients with rectal prolapse (mean age 77.2 years, range 46–93 years; n = 3 men) were selected for PSPR between May 2009 and February 2015. Prolapse length was measured at baseline and after surgery. Patients were asked to grade intensity of symptoms as a satisfaction score of 1–10, 10 representing being symptom-free. Results: The mean operation time was 45.3 min (SD = 17.5, range 25–95 min). The mean rectal prolapse length was reduced significantly from 9.5 cm (SD = 5.0, range 4–30 cm) to 1.2 cm (SD = 2.6, range 0–10 cm; p < 0.0001). Bleeding requiring surgical intervention occurred in two patients (3.7%). Postoperative satisfaction score increased from a mean of 2.2 (SD = 0.9) to a mean of 6.4 (SD = 2.8, p ≤ 0.0001). After a mean follow-up of 13.4 months (SD = 14.1), six patients with recurrence underwent a new PSPR and five patients underwent colostomy, mainly because of incontinence, resulting in a recurrence rate of 20.4%. There were no complications after redo PSPR, and after a median of 10-month follow-up (range 6–37), there were no recurrences. Conclusions: PSPR is a rather new surgical procedure for external rectal prolapse. Immediate complications are few and not serious. Although recurrences can be treated with a second PSPR, the operation may only be the best option for old and fragile patients with comorbidities and a short life expectancy.",
keywords = "Perineal stapled prolapse resection, External rectal prolapse, Perineal approach, Rectopexy",
author = "D Raahave and Jensen, {Andreas Emil Kryger} and L. Dammegaard and Pedersen, {I. K.}",
year = "2016",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1007/s10151-016-1557-9",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "853--857",
journal = "Techniques in Coloproctology",
issn = "1123-6337",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "12",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Primary and repeated perineal stapled prolapse resection

AU - Raahave, D

AU - Jensen, Andreas Emil Kryger

AU - Dammegaard, L.

AU - Pedersen, I. K.

PY - 2016/12

Y1 - 2016/12

N2 - Background: Previous studies of the outcome after perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSPR) have included a limited number of patients with a short follow-up and high recurrence rates. The present study was designed to assess the initial results, complications, recurrence rate, and outcomes up to 4 years after PSPR, as well as the need for a repeated procedure. Methods: Fifty-four consecutive patients with rectal prolapse (mean age 77.2 years, range 46–93 years; n = 3 men) were selected for PSPR between May 2009 and February 2015. Prolapse length was measured at baseline and after surgery. Patients were asked to grade intensity of symptoms as a satisfaction score of 1–10, 10 representing being symptom-free. Results: The mean operation time was 45.3 min (SD = 17.5, range 25–95 min). The mean rectal prolapse length was reduced significantly from 9.5 cm (SD = 5.0, range 4–30 cm) to 1.2 cm (SD = 2.6, range 0–10 cm; p < 0.0001). Bleeding requiring surgical intervention occurred in two patients (3.7%). Postoperative satisfaction score increased from a mean of 2.2 (SD = 0.9) to a mean of 6.4 (SD = 2.8, p ≤ 0.0001). After a mean follow-up of 13.4 months (SD = 14.1), six patients with recurrence underwent a new PSPR and five patients underwent colostomy, mainly because of incontinence, resulting in a recurrence rate of 20.4%. There were no complications after redo PSPR, and after a median of 10-month follow-up (range 6–37), there were no recurrences. Conclusions: PSPR is a rather new surgical procedure for external rectal prolapse. Immediate complications are few and not serious. Although recurrences can be treated with a second PSPR, the operation may only be the best option for old and fragile patients with comorbidities and a short life expectancy.

AB - Background: Previous studies of the outcome after perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSPR) have included a limited number of patients with a short follow-up and high recurrence rates. The present study was designed to assess the initial results, complications, recurrence rate, and outcomes up to 4 years after PSPR, as well as the need for a repeated procedure. Methods: Fifty-four consecutive patients with rectal prolapse (mean age 77.2 years, range 46–93 years; n = 3 men) were selected for PSPR between May 2009 and February 2015. Prolapse length was measured at baseline and after surgery. Patients were asked to grade intensity of symptoms as a satisfaction score of 1–10, 10 representing being symptom-free. Results: The mean operation time was 45.3 min (SD = 17.5, range 25–95 min). The mean rectal prolapse length was reduced significantly from 9.5 cm (SD = 5.0, range 4–30 cm) to 1.2 cm (SD = 2.6, range 0–10 cm; p < 0.0001). Bleeding requiring surgical intervention occurred in two patients (3.7%). Postoperative satisfaction score increased from a mean of 2.2 (SD = 0.9) to a mean of 6.4 (SD = 2.8, p ≤ 0.0001). After a mean follow-up of 13.4 months (SD = 14.1), six patients with recurrence underwent a new PSPR and five patients underwent colostomy, mainly because of incontinence, resulting in a recurrence rate of 20.4%. There were no complications after redo PSPR, and after a median of 10-month follow-up (range 6–37), there were no recurrences. Conclusions: PSPR is a rather new surgical procedure for external rectal prolapse. Immediate complications are few and not serious. Although recurrences can be treated with a second PSPR, the operation may only be the best option for old and fragile patients with comorbidities and a short life expectancy.

KW - Perineal stapled prolapse resection

KW - External rectal prolapse

KW - Perineal approach

KW - Rectopexy

U2 - 10.1007/s10151-016-1557-9

DO - 10.1007/s10151-016-1557-9

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 27888440

VL - 20

SP - 853

EP - 857

JO - Techniques in Coloproctology

JF - Techniques in Coloproctology

SN - 1123-6337

IS - 12

ER -

ID: 172020447