Life after PROSPER. What do people do for external rectal prolapse?

AimA questionnaire completed by members of the ACPGBI in 1997 was a precursor to the PROSPER trial. It showed a significant variation in favoured practice for the surgical treatment of external rectal prolapse. We repeated the same questionnaire to assess how practice has changed since the completion of the trial and its publication. MethodAn online survey was circulated to all members of the ACPGBI with identical questions to those used in the original in 1997. ResultsSimilar numbers of recipients responded (122/791 [15.4%] in 2014;153/600 [25.5%] in 1997). The median number of operations per surgeon per year was unchanged (6 [0-30] vs 6 [0-25]). The percentage of surgeons who favoured an abdominal approach in fit patients in 1997 rose significantly from 63.5% to 81.7% in 2014 (P<0.01). Delorme's remains the most popular perineal procedure (78.5% vs 93.3%), but the Altemeier procedure increased from 14.9% to 39.3%. Ventral rectopexy was the preferred abdominal approach in 2014 (48.6% vs 5.9% [P<0.01]), with 96.3% of these being performed laparoscopically. The number of surgeons carrying out posterior rectopexy decreased from 92.6% to 45.9% (P<0.01). Only 9.9% of surgeons still undertook resection rectopexy compared with 39.7% in 1997 (P<0.01). The numbers of surgeons favouring a perineal approach decreased (18.3% vs 36.5%) although the use of a perineal procedure in elderly or unfit patients was unchanged (38.5% vs 37.9%). ConclusionThe surgical management of external rectal prolapse had changed. More surgeons favoured a laparoscopic abdominal approach in 2014 than in 1997 and the use of perineal approaches had decreased. Of these Delorme's operation remained the most popular but the incidence of the use of Altmeier's procedure had increased.