Challenges in the Surgical Treatment of Rectal Prolapse

R. Pietroletti
{"title":"Challenges in the Surgical Treatment of Rectal Prolapse","authors":"R. Pietroletti","doi":"10.5772/INTECHOPEN.78059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The approach to a patient with overt rectal prolapse remains controversial since the choice of the most appropriate technical option may be a difficult task. The different approaches are based upon patients’ age, comorbidities, sex, size of prolapse, associated incontinence, constipation, and urinary and genital disturbances. However, analysis of the literature failed to detect a significant evidence favoring one among the large number of those different surgical techniques proposed for the treatment of rectal prolapse. In fact, many randomized prospective controlled trials, comparing perineal and abdominal operations, rectopexy alone, resection alone and/or resection plus rectopexy could not find significant differences in terms of morbidity, mortality, improvement of incontinence or constipation, quality of life and recurrence. Therefore, without a clear-cut support by the literature, a pragmatic approach is necessary, applying common sense, experience and considering the availability of resources as well. Nevertheless, we may expect that definitive answers to many open questions about surgery of rectal prolapse may come from larger studies and longer follow-up.","PeriodicalId":270834,"journal":{"name":"Proctological Diseases in Surgical Practice","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proctological Diseases in Surgical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5772/INTECHOPEN.78059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The approach to a patient with overt rectal prolapse remains controversial since the choice of the most appropriate technical option may be a difficult task. The different approaches are based upon patients’ age, comorbidities, sex, size of prolapse, associated incontinence, constipation, and urinary and genital disturbances. However, analysis of the literature failed to detect a significant evidence favoring one among the large number of those different surgical techniques proposed for the treatment of rectal prolapse. In fact, many randomized prospective controlled trials, comparing perineal and abdominal operations, rectopexy alone, resection alone and/or resection plus rectopexy could not find significant differences in terms of morbidity, mortality, improvement of incontinence or constipation, quality of life and recurrence. Therefore, without a clear-cut support by the literature, a pragmatic approach is necessary, applying common sense, experience and considering the availability of resources as well. Nevertheless, we may expect that definitive answers to many open questions about surgery of rectal prolapse may come from larger studies and longer follow-up.
直肠脱垂手术治疗的挑战
直肠脱垂患者的手术方法仍然存在争议,因为选择最合适的技术方案可能是一项艰巨的任务。不同的方法是基于患者的年龄、合并症、性别、脱垂的大小、相关的失禁、便秘以及泌尿和生殖障碍。然而,对文献的分析未能发现在大量不同的手术技术中支持一种治疗直肠脱垂的重要证据。事实上,许多随机前瞻性对照试验,比较会阴和腹部手术,单独直肠固定术,单独切除和/或切除加直肠固定术,在发病率,死亡率,尿失禁或便秘的改善,生活质量和复发率方面均未发现显著差异。因此,在没有文献明确支持的情况下,有必要采用务实的方法,运用常识、经验并考虑到资源的可用性。然而,我们可能期望直肠脱垂手术的许多开放性问题的明确答案可能来自更大的研究和更长的随访。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信