Comparison of recurrence and complication rates of procedures performed for rectal prolapse

Procedure	Recurrence rate	Complication rate
Abdominal procedures
Suture rectopexy	3 to 9%	Approximately 14%
Resection alone	7 to 12%	15 to 29%
Resection rectopexy	2 to 5%	0 to 20%
Anterior mesh rectopexy (modified Ripstein)	4 to 10%	Approximately 20%
Posterior mesh rectopexy (modified Wells)	0 to 3%	0 to 19%
Ventral mesh rectopexy	2 to 4.8%	14 to 47%
Perineal procedures
Delorme procedure	10 to 15%	4 to 12%
Altemeier procedure	16 to 30%	<10%

Data from:

Varma M, Rafferty J, Buie WD. Practice parameters for the management of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 2011; 54:1339.
Novell JR, Osborne MJ, Winslet MC, Lewis AA. Prospective randomized trial of Ivalon sponge versus sutured rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 1994; 81:904.
Madbouly KM, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, et al. Clinically based management of rectal prolapse. Surg Endosc 2003; 17:99.
Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Mahajna A. Clinical and functional outcome of laparoscopic posterior rectopexy (Wells) for full-thickness rectal prolapse. A prospective study. Surg Endosc 2007; 21:2226.

Graphic 109119 Version 3.0