Search

Background: Many different techniques to treat rectal prolapse have been introduced. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy has been shown to entail benefits regarding both perioperative results and short-term outcome, whereas data for long-term outcome are scarce. Methods: Between 1993 and 2008, all laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse II° or III° were selected from a prospective laparoscopic colorectal surgery database. We analyzed demographic, perioperative, and follow-up results. We defined two periods (1993-2000 and 2001-2008) for comparison of data. Long-term follow-up was obtained by sending questionnaires to all patients. Evaluation included constipation, incontinence, and recurrence of prolapse. Results: Between January 1993 and November 2008, we performed 152 laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse. Median age was 64.1 years (±14.6). Conversion rate was 0.7% (1), mean operation time was 204 (±65.3) min, and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first ( P < 0.0001). Mortality was 0.7% ( n = 1). Complication rates were 4% ( n = 6; major) and 19.2% ( n = 29; minor), respectively. Mean length of hospital stay was 11.3 (±6.4) days and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first period ( P < 0.0001). Mean time of follow-up was 47.7 (±41.6) months. Improvement or complete elimination of constipation was stated by 81.3% (65), and improvement or elimination of incontinence was stated by 67.3% (72). Overall recurrence rate was 11.1% ( n = 10) with a rate of 5.6% ( n = 5) for a 5-year period. Of those patients with previous perineal surgery for rectal prolapse, 53.8% (7/13) experienced recurrent prolapse after laparoscopic resection rectopexy in contrast to 3.9% (3/77) of patients without previous perineal prolapse surgery ( P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our data support the benefits of laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse regarding both perioperative results and long-term functional outcome. Preceding perineal or open abdominal operations have an impact on recurrence after laparoscopic resection rectopexy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: To this day, the diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for acute lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage requiring transfusion varies among different hospitals. The purpose of this paper was to evaluate our own data on the group of patients presented and to outline our diagnostic and therapeutic regime taking into account the literature of the past 30 years.Methods: Following prospective data collection on 63 patients of a university hospital (40 male, 23 female patients) who received surgical intervention for acute lower intestinal hemorrhage requiring transfusion, we retrospectively analyzed the data. After a medical history had been taken, all patients underwent clinical examination, including digital palpation; 62 patients underwent procto-rectoscopy, 38 gastroscopy and colonoscopy, 52 patients colonoscopy only, and 45 patients gastroscopy only. Angiography was applied in 14 cases and scintigraphy in 20 cases.Results: Diagnostic procedures to localize hemorrhage were successful in 61 cases, 41 of which through endoscopy, 12 through angiography, and eight through scintigraphy. Of our group of patients, 32 suffered from a bleeding colonic diverticulum, eight from angiodysplasia, and five from bleeding small bowel diverticula. Five patients had inflammatory bowel disease and three neoplasia. Among the surgical interventions, segmental resections were performed most frequently (15 sigmoidectomies, 11 small bowel segmental resections, 11 left hemicolectomies, seven right hemicolectomies, one proctectomy). Subtotal colectomies were carried out in ten cases. The complication rate for this group of critically ill, negatively selected patients was 60.3% and the mortality rate was 15.9%.Conclusions: Examination and stabilization of the patient is directly followed by diagnostic localization. Today, we primarily rely on nonsurgical control of hemorrhage by endoscopy or angiography; the indication for surgery is mainly limited to peracute, uncontrollable, and recurrent forms. In the case of surgery, intestinal segmental resection is recommended after identification of the lesion; if the localization of colonic hemorrhage is uncertain, subtotal resection is the method of choice. For stable patients with unverifiable small-bowel hemorrhage we recommend regular re-evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]