Selection criteria for internal rectal prolapse repair by Delorme's transrectal excision

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to review our results of Delorme's transrectal excision for internal rectal prolapse, with a view to determining preoperative selection criteria associated with a satisfactory outcome. METHODS: Between 1992 and 1998, 20 patients with internal rectal prolapse underwent Delorme's transrectal excision. The last patient was excluded from the study because of a follow-up period shorter than six months. The remaining 19 patients were prospectively followed up and classified into two groups according to their preoperative selection criteria. Group I consisted of eight patients operated on between January 1992 and October 1993 who were selected for surgery after medical treatment during a three-month period failed to improve symptoms. Initial results were reviewed, with a follow-up of at least six months, to assess predictive criteria correlating with poorer surgical outcome. These adverse criteria were used to exclude patients from selection into Group IT, which included 11 patients operated on between June 1994 and June 1997. In each group the degree of improvement of symptoms was graded: Grade 1 = complete improvement with resolution of all symptoms; Grade 2 = significant improvement with resolution of dyschezia but not of other symptoms; Grade 3 = no improvement; and Grade 4 = worsened condition or reoperation. The two groups were compared according to ultimate outcomes. RESULTS: Of the Group I patients, three had preoperative chronic diarrhea, one had proximal internal rectal prolapse with rectosacral separation at defecography, and the other two were incontinent to liquid stool. tin additional patient had incontinence to liquid stool but no diarrhea. Three other patients had major perineal descent (>9 cm). Results were Grade 1 for one patient, Grade 2 for one patient, Grade 3 for five patients, and Grade 4 for one patient (subsequent abdominal rectopexy). Data review showed that proximal internal prolapse with rectosacral separation at defecography, preoperative chronic diarrhea, fecal incontinence, and descending perineum (>9 cm on straining) were associated with a poorer outcome (Grades 3 and 4). These adverse criteria were used to exclude patients from selection into Group II. In this group results were Grade I for seven patients and Grade 2 for four patients. During the course of follow-up (mean, 43; standard deviation, 19; range, 8-73 months), outcome was better in Group II (P = 0.007). CONCLUSION. These data suggest that a favorable outcome can be achieved after Delorme's transrectal excision for internal rectal prolapse by applying stringent patient-selection criteria.