Is the abdominal repair of rectal prolapse safer than perineal repair in the highest risk patients? An NSQIP analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although the perineal approach in the surgical management of rectal prolapse has a higher recurrence, it is the accepted approach for higher-risk patients because of its lower morbidity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine outcomes of abdominal versus perineal approaches to rectal prolapse repair. DESIGN SETTINGS: A retrospective study was performed comparing outcomes of patients undergoing different types of surgical approaches (open abdominal, laparoscopic, perineal) for rectal prolapse. PATIENTS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Participant User Data Files (2008-2009) were queried for patients undergoing adult, elective procedures for rectal prolapse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed to look at age, ASA classification, procedure type, and resultant mortality rate. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred sixty-nine patients meeting our criteria were identified. Older patients (age>80) and higher-risk patients (ASA classifications 3 and 4) were significantly associated with the selection of the perineal approach. The overall mortality rate was 0.5%. The mortality rate for all perineal procedures was 0.9% in comparison with 0.13% for all abdominal operations (p = 0.033). The mortality rate for the highest-risk groups (ASA 3 and 4) for perineal procedures was 1.3% in comparison with 0.35% in the abdominal procedure group; the relative risk for mortality was 4 times greater in the perineal procedure group than in the abdominal procedure group. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective design and standardized outcomes measured use administrative-level data and prevent the assessment of procedure-specific outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital mortality for the surgical repair of rectal prolapse is uncommon. The decision to choose the abdominal approach for the repair of rectal prolapse may not be as prohibitive as previously thought for higher-risk patients. Because of the broad range of functionality within each ASA classification, the operation offered should always be individualized, and patient selection is the most important factor.

Does hemodynamic instability predict positive technetium-labeled red blood cell scintigraphy in patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding? A review of 50 patients.

PURPOSE: Technetium-99m-labeled red blood cell scintigraphy, commonly used in the evaluation of acute lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage, often fails to demonstrate a source of bleeding. It would be helpful to characterize a subset of patients more likely to have a positive scan. This study was undertaken to determine whether hemodynamic instability can predict tagged red blood cell scan positivity. METHODS: The records of 50 consecutive patients who underwent tagged red blood cell scanning for the evaluation of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: Patients presenting with a heart rate >100 beats per minute or a systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg up to 24 hours before undergoing tagged red blood cell scanning were considered hemodynamically unstable. Thirteen of 21 unstable patients (62 percent) had positive scans, whereas only 6 of 29 stable patients (21 percent) had positive scintigraphy (odds ratio, 6; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.79-22.1). CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic instability in the setting of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding may be a predictor of positive tagged red blood cell scanning. Incorporating this into the diagnostic algorithm used to evaluate patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding may allow physicians to reserve red blood cell scintigraphy for patients who have demonstrated transient hemodynamic compromise.