Delorme’s vs. Altemeier’s in the management of rectal procidentia: systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Langenbeck's archives of surgery 2023-12, Vol.408 (1), p.454-454, Article 454
• Main Authors: Bhattacharya, Pratik, Hussain, Mohammad Iqbal, Zaman, Shafquat, Randle, Sophie, Tanveer, Yousaf, Faiz, Nameer, Sarma, Diwakar Ryali, Peravali, Rajeev
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abdominal Surgery; Blood Loss, Surgical; Cardiac Surgery; Constriction, Pathologic; Digestive System Surgical Procedures - methods; General Surgery; Humans; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Rectal Prolapse - surgery; Recurrence; Systematic Review; Thoracic Surgery; Traumatic Surgery; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Surgery
• ISSN: 1435-2451; 1435-2451
• DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03181-z

Background Rectal prolapse is a distressing condition for patients and no consensus exists on optimal surgical management. We compared outcomes of two common perineal operations (Delorme’s and Altemeier’s) used in the treatment of rectal prolapse. Methods A systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. Peri- and post-operative outcomes following Delorme’s and Altemeier’s procedures were extracted. Primary outcomes included recurrence rate, anastomotic dehiscence rate and mortality rate. The secondary outcomes were total operative time, volume of blood loss, length of hospital stay and coloanal anastomotic stricture formation. Revman 5.3 was used to perform all statistical analysis. Results Ten studies with 605 patients were selected; 286 underwent Altemeier’s procedure (standalone), 39 had Altemeier’s with plasty (perineoplasty or levatoroplasty), and 280 had Delorme’s. Recurrence rate [OR: 0.66; 95% CI [0.44–0.99], P  = 0.05] was significantly lower and anastomotic dehiscence [RD: 0.05; 95% CI [0.00–0.09], P  = 0.03] was significantly higher in the Altemeier’s group. However, sub group analysis of Altemeier’s with plasty failed to show significant differences in these outcomes compared with the Delorme’s procedure. Length of hospital stay was significantly more following an Altemeier’s operation compared with Delorme’s [MD: 3.05, 95% CI [0.95 – 5.51], P  = 0.004]. No significant difference was found in total operative time, intra-operative blood loss, coloanal anastomotic stricture formation and mortality rates between the two approaches. Conclusions A direct comparison of two common perineal procedures used in the treatment of rectal prolapse demonstrated that the Altemeier’s approach was associated with better outcomes. Future, well-designed high quality RCTs with long-term follow up are needed to corroborate our findings.