Perineal rectosigmoidectomy for rectal prolapse: role of levatorplasty.

BACKGROUND: The management of full thickness rectal prolapse remains controversial. Although abdominal approaches have a lower recurrence rate than do perineal operations, they are associated with a higher morbidity. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of perineal rectosigmoidectomy with and without levatorplasty. METHODS: Between 1989 and 1999, a total of 109 consecutive patients (10 men) underwent 120 perineal procedures. These patients were retrospectively evaluated in two groups on the basis of the type of surgery received: perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PRS) or perineal rectosigmoidectomy with levatorplasty (PRSL). Subsequent functional outcome and physiological parameters were assessed. RESULTS: The patients had a mean age of 75.7 years (range, 23.0-94.8 years) and they were followed for an overall mean (in both groups combined) of 28.0 months (range, 0.4-126.4 months) after surgery. Mean duration of surgery was 78.1 min (SD=25.9) and 97.6 min (SD=32.3) in PRS and PRSL, respectively ( p=0.002, unpaired t test). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of hospital stay, morbidity or mortality. Recurrence rates and mean time interval to recurrence were, respectively, 20.6% and 45.5 months in PRS compared to 7.7% and 13.3 months in PRSL ( p=0.049, chi-square test; p=0.001, unpaired t test). Both groups had significant improvements in postoperative incontinence score ( p<0.0001, Wilcoxon's matched-pairs signed-ranks test), however, there were no significant changes in anorectal manometric findings and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Perineal rectosigmoidectomy with levatorplasty is associated with a lower recurrence rate and a longer time to recurrence than perineal rectosigmoidectomy alone. Levatorplasty should be offered to patients when a perineal approach for rectal prolapse is selected.