Plakophilin3 loss leads to increased adenoma formation and rectal prolapse in APCmin mice.

Plakophilin3 (PKP3) loss leads to tumor progression and metastasis of colon cancer cells. The goal of this report was to determine if PKP3 loss led to increased disease progression in mice. We generated a colonocyte-specific knockout of PKP3 in APCmin mice, which led to increased adenoma formation, the formation of rectal prolapse, and a significant decrease in survival. The observed increase in rectal prolapse formation and decrease in survival correlated with an increase in the expression of Lipocalin2 (LCN2). Increased disease progression was observed even upon treatment with 5-fluorouracil (5FU). These results suggest that an increase in LCN2 expression might lead to therapy resistance and that LCN2 might serve as a potential therapeutic target in colorectal cancer.

One decade of rectal prolapse surgery: a national study.

PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate the development of common procedures used as treatment for rectal prolapse over a decade and to determine if the choice of primary operation affects the reoperation rate. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of operative data from a National Data Registry, Landspatientregisteret (LPR), from the period of January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2014. All hospitalized surgical treatments are registered in LPR. RESULTS: Sixteen hundred and twenty-five patients with rectal prolapse underwent 1834 operations. There were 94% women and mean age at surgery was 71.6 ± 18.1 years, with no difference over the 11 years. The types of operations performed differed (p < 0.0001), with an increase in overall number of operations and increasing use of laparoscopic procedures. There were 209 reoperations, of which 129 patients were primarily operated with a perineal procedure. The mean age at reoperation was 72.8 ± 17.3 years. The most frequently used reoperation was laparoscopic rectopexy. The overall reoperation rate was 16%: 10% for both open and laparoscopic rectopexy, and for perineal procedures 26% (p < 0.001). The overall 30-day mortality was 2.1% and there was no difference in mortality between the procedures (p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: The overall number of rectal prolapse operations was increasing. There was a clear trend towards extended use of laparoscopic rectopexy both as primary procedure and as reoperation. The highest reoperation rates were for the perineal procedures.

Clinical outcomes of perineal proctectomy among patients of advanced age.

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse occurs primarily in older patients who often have significant comorbidities. With the aging population, increasing numbers of elderly patients are presenting with rectal prolapse. The perineal approach is preferred for these patients because it involves less perioperative risk than an abdominal procedure, but the outcomes of this procedure in elderly patients are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine whether clinical outcomes after perineal proctectomy are similar among elderly patients versus patients of younger age. DESIGN: This study was a retrospective review. SETTING: This study was conducted in mixed academic and private practice; the operations were performed at 16 hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients who had perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse from 1994 to 2012 were grouped according to age: <70 (group A), 70 to 79 (group B), 80 to 89 (group C), and ≥90 years (group D). INTERVENTIONS: Perineal proctectomy with or without concurrent levatorplasty was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were postoperative complications, recurrence, and survival after perineal proctectomy. RESULTS: Four hundred patients underwent 518 perineal proctectomies: group A, N = 113; group B, N = 113; group C, N = 208; and group D, N = 84. The immediate and late complication rates were 5.6% and 3.5% and did not vary by age. Recurrence was 22.6% and was significantly different between groups, with the lowest recurrence in group D, 14.3% (p = 0.007). Reoperation after recurrence was less likely in group D. The main type of reoperation was perineal proctectomy (41.5%), but, for group D, recurrence was usually managed nonoperatively (58.3%). Median survival after operation was more than 4 years in the advanced age group. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective data, which did not allow analysis of patients with rectal prolapse who did not undergo surgery, were used in this study. CONCLUSIONS: When selected appropriately, patients 90 years of age or older have outcomes similar to younger patients; therefore, age alone should not be a contraindication to surgery. In addition, elderly patients have a median survival of more than 4 years after surgery, so the operative risk can be worth the benefit accrued.

Complications after rectal prolapse surgery: does approach matter?

BACKGROUND: Data comparing surgical outcomes following abdominal and transperineal approaches for rectal prolapse are limited. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify differences in postoperative complications following abdominal vs transperineal approaches to rectal prolapse. DESIGN: We studied a retrospective cohort in the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from January 2005 through December 2008. PATIENTS: We identified all patients who underwent surgical treatment for rectal prolapse. INTERVENTION: We compared surgical outcomes of standard abdominal approaches compared with standard transperineal approaches to rectal prolapse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the validated morbidity outcomes and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 1485 patients underwent rectal prolapse surgery (706 abdominal and 779 transperineal). Patients treated with abdominal approaches had significantly higher rates of infectious (9.8% vs 3.7%) and overall (12.9% vs 7.6%) complications in comparison with those treated with transperineal approaches. On multivariate analysis, risk factors for overall complications were ASA class 4 (OR 6.4) and abdominal surgery (OR 2.3), whereas an albumin level of ≥ 2.5 was protective (OR 0.05). Significant predictors of infectious complications were ASA class 4 (OR 7.5), BMI >25 (OR 1.8), and rectal prolapse surgery performed with an abdominal approach (OR 2.8). LIMITATIONS: The retrospective design introduces potential selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal surgery for rectal prolapse is a predictor of both infectious and overall complications. Patients with significant comorbidities or a high BMI are at particularly high risk for complications and may be better suited for a transperineal rather than abdominal approach for the treatment of rectal prolapse.

Outcome analysis of elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse.

PURPOSE: For treatment of rectal prolapse, abdominal approaches are generally offered to younger patients, whereas perineal, less invasive procedures are considered more beneficial in the elderly. The aim of this study was to analyze whether laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) is suitable for older patients. PATIENTS/METHODS: Patients who received LRR for rectal prolapse were selected from a prospective laparoscopic colorectal surgery database. Perioperative and long-term outcome were compared between patients <75 years old (group A) and ≥75 years old (group B). RESULTS: Of 154 patients, 111 were in group A and 43 in group B. There was one conversion that occurred in group B. Overall mortality rate was 1.3% (n = 2). Both patients were in group B (group B, 4.7%; p = 0.079). Differences in major and minor complications between the groups were not significant. Rates of improvement for incontinence were 62.7% (group A) and 66.7% (group B; p = 0.716); for constipation, the rates were 78.9% (group A) and 73.3% (group B; p = 0.832). All recurrences occurred in group A (n = 10; overall, 10.3%; group A, 13%). After exclusion of patients who had previously received perineal prolapse surgery, recurrence rate was 3.3% overall (group A, 4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the benefits of LRR for rectal prolapse in elderly patients. Age per se is not a contraindication for LRR. Elderly patients encounter complications slightly more frequently (although not statistically significant) than younger patients. Therefore, a very careful patient selection in the elderly is of paramount importance. However, the long-term outcome does not seem to differ between younger and elderly patients.

It's the procedure not the patient: the operative approach is independently associated with an increased risk of complications after rectal prolapse repair.

AIM: This study compares 30-day outcomes following rectal prolapse repair, examining potential surgical and patient factors associated with perioperative complications. METHOD: Using the NSQIP database, patients with rectal prolapse were categorized by surgical approach to repair (perineal or abdominal) and abdominal cases were further subdivided by procedure (resection compared with rectopexy alone). Univariate and multivariate analyses compared major and minor complication rates between the groups. RESULTS: Of 1275 patients, the perineal group (n=706, 55%) was older, with more comorbidity, than those undergoing an abdominal procedure. There were fewer minor (odd ratio (OR)=0.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-0.60; P=0.0038) and major complications (OR=0.46; 95% CI, 0.31-0.80; P=0.0038) in the perineal compared with the abdominal cohort. There was a significant increase in major complications amongst patients undergoing a resection compared with rectopexy only (OR=2.15; 95% CI, 1.10-4.41; P=0.0299). There was no difference in major complications between abdominal rectopexy and a perineal approach, but the latter had a lower chance of minor complications (OR=0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.94; P=0.0287). CONCLUSION: A perineal approach is safer than an abdominal approach to the treatment of rectal prolapse. Regarding an abdominal operation, rectopexy has fewer major complications than resection.

Results of the treatment of rectal prolapse operated according to Ripstein.

59 patients have been submitted to abdominal rectopexi according to Ripstein. The operative mortality was 5%, which was, however, not wholly due to the operation. The mortality-rate shows, however, that patients older than 60 years of age must be carefully evaluated preoperatively. The recurrence-rate was 5,4% with a mean observation period of 5 years. The method appears to be satisfactory for treatment of rectal prolapse.

Rectal procidentia in elderly and debilitated patients. Experience with the Altemeier procedure.

The term "rectal procidentia" implies circumferential full-thickness descent of the rectum through the anal sphincter. This condition occurs because of several structural and anatomic changes and offers a challenge in its management. There are over 50 different surgical procedures described to correct this condition. Unfortunately, when it occurs in the elderly and infirm, there is very little that can be done. Such poor-risk patients should be managed with a perineal repair as described by Altemeier. The purpose of this article is to review our results and experiences with Altemeier's procedure in managing rectal procidentia in elderly and debilitated patients.

Anterior resection for complete rectal prolapse.

One hundred thirteen patients underwent anterior resection for complete rectal prolapse between 1968 and 1980. These patients were followed for an average of seven years; recurrence developed in eight patients (9 percent). Recurrences were found to occur at three months to eight years postoperatively, and the probability of a recurrence at two, five, and ten years was 3 percent, 6 percent, and 12 percent, respectively. Operative mortality was 1 percent and morbidity was 29 percent. Low anterior resection, with anastomosis in the deperitonealized portion of the colon, was found to increase morbidity without significantly decreasing recurrence when compared with high anterior resection. The effects of repair on patient continence were unpredictable. High anterior resection is preferable to low anterior resection in the treatment of rectal prolapse and offers results comparable to those of other repairs currently being performed.

Recurrent rectal prolapse: what is the next good option?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and functional outcome of surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse and compare it with the outcome of patients who underwent primary operation for rectal prolapse. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery for rectal prolapse were evaluated for age, gender, procedure, anorectal manometry and electromyography findings, and morbidity. The results for patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse were compared with a group of patients matched for age, gender, surgeon, and procedure who underwent primary operations for rectal prolapse. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients underwent surgery for rectal prolapse. Twenty-seven patients, 10 initially operated on at this institution and 17 operated on elsewhere, underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse. These 27 patients were compared with 27 patients with primary rectal prolapse operated on in our department. In the recurrent rectal prolapse group, prior surgery included rectopexy in 7 patients, Delorme's procedure in 7 patients, perineal rectosigmoidectomy in 7 patients, anal encirclement procedure in 4 patients, and resection rectopexy in 2 patients. Operations performed for recurrence were perineal rectosigmoidectomy in 14 patients, resection rectopexy in 8 patients, rectopexy in 2 patients, pelvic floor repair in 2 patients, and Delorme's procedure in 1 patient. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in preoperative incontinence score (recurrent rectal prolapse, 13.6 +/- 7.8 vs. rectal prolapse, 12.7 +/- 7.2; range, 0-20) or manometric or electromyography findings, and there were no significant differences in mortality (0 vs. 3.7 percent), mean hospital stay (5.4 +/- 2.5 vs. 6.9 +/- 2.8 days), anastomotic complications (anastomotic stricture (0 vs. 7.4 percent), anastomotic leak (3.7 vs. 3.7 percent) and wound infection (3.7 vs. 0 percent), postoperative incontinence score (2.8 +/- 4.8 vs. 1.5 +/- 2.7), or recurrence rate (14.8 vs. 11.1 percent) between the two groups at a mean follow-up of 23.9 (range, 6-68) and 22 (range, 5-55) months, respectively. The overall success rate for recurrent rectal prolapse was 85.2 percent. CONCLUSION: The outcome of surgery for rectal prolapse is similar in cases of primary or recurrent prolapse. The same surgical options are valid in both scenarios.

Ulcerative proctitis, rectal prolapse, and intestinal pseudo-obstruction in transgenic mice overexpressing hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor.

Hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor (HGF/SF) can stimulate growth of gastrointestinal epithelial cells in vitro; however, the physiological role of HGF/SF in the digestive tract is poorly understood. To elucidate this in vivo function, mice were analyzed in which an HGF/SF transgene was overexpressed throughout the digestive tract. Nearly a third of all HGF/SF transgenic mice in this study (28 of 87) died by 6 months of age as a result of sporadic intestinal obstruction of unknown etiology. Enteric ganglia were not overtly affected, indicating that the pathogenesis of this intestinal lesion was different from that operating in Hirschsprung's disease. Transgenic mice also exhibited a rectal inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with a high incidence of anorectal prolapse. Expression of interleukin-2 was decreased in the transgenic colon, indicating that HGF/SF may influence regulation of the local intestinal immune system within the colon. These results suggest that HGF/SF plays an important role in the development of gastrointestinal paresis and chronic intestinal inflammation. HGF/SF transgenic mice may represent a useful model for the study of molecular mechanisms associated with a subset of IBD and intestinal pseudo-obstruction. Moreover, our data identify previously unappreciated side effects that may be encountered when using HGF/SF as a therapeutic agent.