Surgical management of pediatric rectal prolapse: A survey of the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA).

Authors:
Payam Saadai
Payam Saadai
University of California
United States
Jacob Stephenson
Jacob Stephenson
Seattle Children's Hospital and University of Washington
United States
Rebecca Stark
Rebecca Stark
University of California
United States
Diana L Farmer
Diana L Farmer
University of California
United States
Jacob C Langer
Jacob C Langer
The Hospital for Sick Children
Canada
Shinjiro Hirose
Shinjiro Hirose
University of California

J Pediatr Surg 2019 Mar 18. Epub 2019 Mar 18.

University of California at Davis Medical Center, Shriners Hospitals for Children, Northern California, 2425 Stockton Blvd., Sacramento, CA 25817.

Introduction: Many management options exist for the treatment of refractory rectal prolapse (RP) in children. Our goal was to characterize current practice patterns among active members of APSA.

Methods: A 23-item questionnaire assessed the management of full-thickness RP for healthy children who have failed medical management. The survey was approved by our IRB and by the APSA Outcomes committee.

Results: 236 surgeons participated. The respondents were geographically dispersed (44 states, 5 provinces). 32% of respondents had twenty or more years of clinical experience. 71% evaluated 1-5 RP patients in the last 2 years, while 5% evaluated >10. 71% performed 0-1 procedure (operation or local therapy [LT]) for RP over 2 years. 59% would treat a 2-year-old patient differently than a 6-year-old with the same presentation, and were more likely to offer up-front surgery to a 6-year-old (26% vs 15%, p = 0.04), less likely to continue medical management indefinitely (2% vs 7%, p=0.01), and more likely to perform resection with rectopexy (30% vs. 15%, p=0.01). 71% perform LT as an initial intervention: injection sclerotherapy (59%), anal encirclement (8%), and sclerotherapy + anal encirclement (5%). 70% consider LT a failure after 1-3 attempts. If LT fails, surgical management consists of transabdominal rectopexy (46%), perineal proctectomy or proctosigmoidectomy (22%), transabdominal sigmoidectomy + rectopexy (22%), and posterior sagittal rectopexy (9%).

Conclusions: There is wide variability in the surgical management of pediatric rectal prolapse. This suggests a need for development of processes to identify best practices and optimize outcomes for this condition.

Download full-text PDF

Source
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S00223468193013
Publisher Site
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.02.017DOI Listing
March 2019
10 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

rectal prolapse
12
surgical management
12
pediatric rectal
8
anal encirclement
8
medical management
8
management pediatric
8
management
6
patients years
4
years evaluated
4
70% consider
4
rectopexy
4
evaluated 1-5
4
proctectomy proctosigmoidectomy
4
evaluated >10
4
1-5 patients
4
perineal proctectomy
4
0-1 procedure
4
p=001 71%
4
procedure operation
4
46% perineal
4

Similar Publications