PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine what impact surgical technique, means of access, and method of rectopexy have on recurrence rates following abdominal surgery for full-thickness rectal prolapse. METHODS: ...PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine what impact surgical technique, means of access, and method of rectopexy have on recurrence rates following abdominal surgery for full-thickness rectal prolapse. METHODS: Consecutive individual patient data on age, gender, surgical technique (mobilization-only, mobilization-resection-pexy, or mobilization-pexy), means of access (open or laparoscopic), rectopexy method (suture or mesh), follow-up length, and recurrences were collected from 15 centers performing abdominal surgery for full-thickness rectal prolapse between 1979 and 2001. Recurrenc e was defined as the presence of full-thickness rectal prolapse after abdominal surgery. Chi-squared test and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were used to assess statistical heterogeneity. Recurrence-free curves were generated and compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test, respectively. RESULTS: Abdominal surgery consisted of mobilization-only (n = 46), mobilization-resection-pexy (n = 130), or mobilization-pexy (n = 467). There were 643 patients. After excluding center 8, there was homogeneity on recurrence rates among the centers with recurrences (n = 8) for age (hazards ratio, 0.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2- 1.7; P = 0.405), gender (hazards ratio, 0.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1- 2.3; P = 0.519), and center (hazards ratio, 0.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1- 1.5; P = 0.142). However, there was heterogeneity between centers with (n= 8) and without recurrences (n = 6) for gender (P = 0.0003), surgical technique (P < 0.0001),means of access (P = 0.01), and rectopexy method (P < 0.0001). The median length of follow-up of individual centers varied from 4 to 127 months (P < 0.0001). There were 38 recurrences at a median follow-up of 43 (range, 1- 235) months. The pooled one-, five-, and ten-year recurrence rates were 1.06, 6.61, and 28.9 percent, respectively. Age, gender, surgical technique, means of access, and rectopexy method had no impact on recurrence rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study is likely underpowered, the impact of mobilization-only on recurrence rates was similar to that of other surgical techniques.展开更多
文摘PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine what impact surgical technique, means of access, and method of rectopexy have on recurrence rates following abdominal surgery for full-thickness rectal prolapse. METHODS: Consecutive individual patient data on age, gender, surgical technique (mobilization-only, mobilization-resection-pexy, or mobilization-pexy), means of access (open or laparoscopic), rectopexy method (suture or mesh), follow-up length, and recurrences were collected from 15 centers performing abdominal surgery for full-thickness rectal prolapse between 1979 and 2001. Recurrenc e was defined as the presence of full-thickness rectal prolapse after abdominal surgery. Chi-squared test and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were used to assess statistical heterogeneity. Recurrence-free curves were generated and compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test, respectively. RESULTS: Abdominal surgery consisted of mobilization-only (n = 46), mobilization-resection-pexy (n = 130), or mobilization-pexy (n = 467). There were 643 patients. After excluding center 8, there was homogeneity on recurrence rates among the centers with recurrences (n = 8) for age (hazards ratio, 0.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2- 1.7; P = 0.405), gender (hazards ratio, 0.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1- 2.3; P = 0.519), and center (hazards ratio, 0.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1- 1.5; P = 0.142). However, there was heterogeneity between centers with (n= 8) and without recurrences (n = 6) for gender (P = 0.0003), surgical technique (P < 0.0001),means of access (P = 0.01), and rectopexy method (P < 0.0001). The median length of follow-up of individual centers varied from 4 to 127 months (P < 0.0001). There were 38 recurrences at a median follow-up of 43 (range, 1- 235) months. The pooled one-, five-, and ten-year recurrence rates were 1.06, 6.61, and 28.9 percent, respectively. Age, gender, surgical technique, means of access, and rectopexy method had no impact on recurrence rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study is likely underpowered, the impact of mobilization-only on recurrence rates was similar to that of other surgical techniques.
