Rectal Prolapse — Perineal-vs-Abdominal Recurrence Arithmetic, Ventral-Mesh Efficacy and Mesh-Consent Numbers

Definition and framing — tailor, never stage-table

Complete external rectal prolapse is a circumferential full-thickness protrusion of the rectum through the anus, which may be intermittent or may incarcerate with a risk of strangulation.^[5] There are multiple surgical options, so care starts with understanding each patient's symptoms, bowel habits, anatomy and pre-operative expectations, then tailoring the approach — abdominal versus perineal, minimally invasive versus open — to that patient.^[5] The 2017 Dutch guidelines structure exactly this pathway: nine questions on diagnosis, conservative and surgical management, searched across Medline and Embase and graded with GRADE.^[1] Their honest footnote travels with every claim below: many statements still require a higher level of evidence for lack of studies.^[1] There is no examined classification system in this evidence set: quote Oxford grades only as reported inside the included series — grade III in 25 and grade IV in 75 of 100 women undergoing ventral rectopexy for internal prolapse — never a complete grading table.^[44]

Mechanism and natural history — intussusception to procidentia

Complete prolapse probably starts as a mid-rectal intussusception, with a sliding-hernia contribution; the pelvic-floor weakness and incontinence reflect traction injury to the pudendal nerve, and anorectal manometry indicates which incontinent patients are likely to benefit from rectopexy.^[2] Defecography is the radiologic investigation of choice for this mechanism — it documents the evacuation process and is the method of choice for recognising rectal intussusception, while also demonstrating coexistent enteroceles that physical examination misses.^[2][4] The 1014-woman spectrum study supports the progressive reading: median age 51, with rectoanal intussusception diagnosed older than rectorectal disease and symptom durations of 60 months for rectorectal intussusception against 36 months for external prolapse.^[3] Internal prolapse itself presents mixed: faecal continence disturbance in 56% and evacuation disorders in 85% of patients, which is why management runs through dynamic defecography or MRI with an Oxford severity score, decided multidisciplinarily and only after medical treatment has failed.^[45]

Workup — examine, scope, measure, and check the other compartments

The tailored workup is physical examination plus colonoscopy and anoscopy, with anal manometry and defecography in selected patients.^[5] Add the compartment the general surgeon forgets: preoperative evaluation should include assessment for concomitant pelvic-organ prolapse, which only about 70% of surveyed colorectal surgeons routinely perform.^[6] The reason is recurrence arithmetic, not completeness for its own sake: pelvic-organ prolapse was present in 33% of 112 women undergoing prolapse repair and was enriched among those who recurred (52.4% against 28.6%), with perineal repair plus prolapse carrying a 31-fold hazard against abdominal repair without prolapse.^[7] For obstructed-defecation presentations, run the consensus algorithm: the Belgian ODS guideline distilled 82 drafted statements into 62 final statements at 80% or greater agreement under GRADE.^[8] And when robotic ventral mesh rectopexy is on the table, the 2025 Delphi consensus of 33 experts and 27 statements standardises the workup, indications, steps and learning curve.^[9]

Perineal surgery — Delorme versus Altemeier with numbers

Ten studies with 605 patients (286 Altemeier standalone, 39 Altemeier with plasty, 280 Delorme) give the head-to-head: recurrence odds ratio 0.66 favouring Altemeier, anastomotic dehiscence risk difference 0.05 against Altemeier, and hospital stay 3.05 days longer after Altemeier — with operating time, blood loss, stricture formation and mortality all non-significant, and the Altemeier-with-plasty subgroup losing both significant differences against Delorme.^[10] The only randomised perineal-versus-abdominal anchor sharpens the counselling: DELORES randomised 70 and analysed 65 (33 laparoscopic resection rectopexy, 32 Delorme) over median 23.9 months — 24-month full-thickness recurrence 8.2% against 42.8% favouring resection rectopexy, median time to recurrence 17.8 against 8.2 months, operating time 212 against 77 minutes, reoperation 0% against 33.3%, with quality-of-life and Wexner incontinence scores favouring resection rectopexy.^[11] For Delorme alone, the two-centre cohort (70 patients, median age 76, median follow-up 46 months) reports 16 recurrences with no single-versus-multi-surgeon difference — a perineal operation with a real but bounded tail.^[12] Perineal stapled prolapse resection sits in the same band: 408 patients across 20 articles, 58 recurrences in 368 patients over median 18 months, weighted recurrence 12%, with bleeding the most common of 51 complications in 350 cases.^[54]

Altemeier recurrence arithmetic — the number set for the elderly consent

The Cleveland Clinic multicenter study is the counsel: 182 patients, 95.1% women, mean age 79 — 37.9% recurred at mean 27.5 months with 16.5% suffering multiple recurrences, and a subsequent Altemeier was performed in 72.5% of instances; connective-tissue disorders and elapsed time since surgery were the significant recurrence risks.^[13] The European long-term series steadies the range: 93 patients at median age 77 with levatorplasty in 78% — no mortality, 8.6% major and 14% minor complications, complete recurrence 18% at mean 41 months.^[14] The age-band series answers the fitness question directly: 400 patients undergoing 518 perineal proctectomies across four age bands including 84 patients aged 90 or older — immediate complications 5.6% and late 3.5% with no age variation, recurrence 22.6% and lowest in the 90-plus group at 14.3%, reoperation less likely past 90, and median survival beyond 4 years — so age alone is not a contraindication when selection is appropriate.^[15] Small high-risk series fill the frail end of the menu: perineal excision with levator repair in 72 elderly high-risk patients recurred 5.5% with continence improved in 66.7%, and helicoidal suture in 16 ASA-III patients over 60 had no operative complications or mortality with one recurrence and incontinence scores falling from 23.6 to 6.06 at median 60 months.^[41][42]

Abdominal principles — mobilisation depth decides, fixation and access do not

The 532-patient individual-data pool settles the oldest technical argument: 46 recurrences (8.6%) at median 60 months, with only the degree of rectal mobilisation independently associated with recurrence — circumferential mobilisation decreased long-term recurrence, while neither fixation type nor open-versus-laparoscopic access influenced it.^[16] The network meta-analysis of 9 randomised trials (728 patients, 12 to 47 months follow-up) ranks posterior mesh rectopexy best on recurrence — lower odds than Altemeier, Delorme, resection, sponge and sutured rectopexy, similar odds to ventral mesh — with complications, operating time and incontinence improvement non-significant across procedures.^[17] Cochrane's full-thickness review (15 randomised trials, 1007 participants spanning abdominal-versus-perineal, fixation, lateral-ligament, laparoscopic-versus-open and resection comparisons) is the reason no single operation commands consensus.^[18] Against sutured rectopexy specifically, mesh wins on recurrence (odds ratio 0.28 across 5 studies and 307 patients) at the price of about 24 extra minutes of operating time, with continence, constipation, infection and stay equivalent.^[30]

Ventral mesh rectopexy — the efficacy core with follow-up attached

Seventeen studies with 1242 patients at median age 60 give the headline: weighted recurrence 2.8% and complications 12.4% with 1.8% conversion at median 23 months — incontinence improved in 79.3% and constipation in 71% — with male gender and mesh length as the significant recurrence predictors.^[19] Three confirmatory ledgers hold the line at longer follow-up: 12 non-randomised series with 574 patients and mean recurrence 4.7% at median 23 months with no surgical mortality and 2.9% conversion;^[20] 190 ventral mesh rectopexies with 1% 60-day mortality, 3% recurrence and 3.7% mesh complications at median active follow-up of 29 months;^[21] and 636 ventral mesh rectopexies with 9.9% operative, 9.4% recurrent-symptom and 3.1% mesh-related complications, where male sex and prior abdominal surgery predicted operative complications and polyester mesh predicted mesh complications and recurrence.^[22] The Orr-Loygue ventral variant with limited dissection reports 3 recurrences in 73 patients (4.1%) at mean 28.6 months with 61.6% cured and 32.9% improved.^[23] The randomised long-term comparator favours ventral mesh over posterior sutured rectopexy on quality of life and constipation scores at median 6.1 years, with recurrence 8.82% against 23.33% not reaching significance.^[29]

Mesh choice and mesh complications — the consent conversation

Across 6269 ventral mesh rectopexy patients in 40 studies, any complications ran 9.2% and mesh-related complications 1.4% — of which 64.8% were erosions, 11.4% fistulas and 13.6% mesh releases — at 1% each for biological and synthetic mesh and 1.8% where mesh type was unspecified or mixed.^[24] The synthetic-versus-biologic meta-analysis (32 studies; 4001 synthetic and 762 biologic patients in the complications set) pools synthetic mesh-related complications at 1.0% with cumulative recurrence 6.1% synthetic against 5.8% biologic — and, on high heterogeneity, reaches no definitive conclusion on preferred mesh material.^[25] Name the rare catastrophe so the consent is honest: spondylodiscitis after recto- or colpo-sacropexy struck 41 women at median age 59 after a median of 76 days — back pain in 35, fever in 20, erosion in 8, fistula in 7 — with antibiotics alone sufficing in 29%.^[26] Ventral mesh rectopexy with biological mesh holds its short-term side of the ledger: 123 patients with significant CCCS, CCIS and ODS improvement at 6 and 12 months, satisfaction 8.2 and 8.3 out of 10, overall complications 14% with 2% major.^[34]

Functional outcomes — what improves, what appears

The 65-patient ventral rectopexy series (median age 72, one-third over 80, median 19 months) is the functional anchor: constipation improved in 72% and was mildly induced in 2% (Wexner 9 against 4), continence improved in 83% and was induced or worsened in 5% (scores 40 against 4) — with one recurrence and one conversion, 17% morbidity and no mortality.^[27] The midterm hold confirms durability: 58 patients at median 49 months with one recurrence (2%), incontinence and constipation scores improved from 3 months and sustained to 4 to 5 years, and no new-onset constipation.^[28] Robotic-versus-laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (5 studies, 259 patients) shows no difference in conversion, morbidity or recurrence — the platform is a preference, not an outcome.^[53]

Safety — NSQIP pricing, VTE, and the resection warning

In 1485 NSQIP patients (706 abdominal, 779 perineal), abdominal approaches carried higher infectious (9.8% against 3.7%) and overall (12.9% against 7.6%) complications; multivariate risks were ASA class 4 and abdominal surgery for both, with albumin 2.5 or higher protective, and BMI above 25 joining the infectious list.^[31] The companion analysis of 1275 patients makes the deeper point: the perineal group was older with more comorbidity yet suffered fewer minor (odds ratio 0.35) and major (0.46) complications — it is the procedure, not the patient — while adding resection to rectopexy more than doubled major complications (odds ratio 2.15).^[32] Venous thromboembolism is uncommon but real: 61 events in 19,197 prolapse procedures (0.32%) within 30 days, over 60% within 2 weeks, with dependent functional status the independent risk at odds ratio 2.62.^[33] Elective repair mortality benchmarks low — 0.2% in the Irish population series.^[49]

Recurrence synthesis — approach, redo, and predictors

For recurrent external prolapse, 9 studies with 531 patients give overall re-recurrence 26.3% at mean 30.5 months — 27.9% after perineal surgery against 15.6% after abdominal — while length of stay runs longer after abdominal repair.^[35] The single-centre 30-woman series agrees in direction: re-recurrence 39% after perineal against 25% after abdominal procedures, with ventral mesh and resection rectopexy each succeeding in 75% against 60% for Altemeier and 67% for Delorme.^[36] Redo ventral mesh rectopexy is worthwhile but not free: 43 redos with complications in 23.3% (mesh-related 4.7%) and external re-recurrence 4.5%.^[37] Counsel predictors by name: prolonged symptom duration and greater prolapse length raise recurrence while ventral mesh rectopexy protects (93% risk reduction); prolonged pudendal latency and synthetic mesh raise it in the ventral-rectopexy cohort.^[38][39] The 280-patient length study grounds the anatomy: mean prolapse 4.8 cm with 18% overall recurrence.^[40]

Special populations — elderly, men, and prolapse-plus-prolapse

In 330 elderly patients (250 ventral mesh rectopexy, 80 perineal stapler resection), the abdominal operation had fewer complications, lower recurrence, lower Wexner incontinence and Altomare constipation scores, a longer surgery-to-recurrence interval, and better incontinence improvement and satisfaction.^[38] In men — 8 studies, 452 patients at median age 45.6, four-fifths abdominal — recurrence ran 11.2% after ventral mesh, 0.8% after posterior mesh, zero after resection and 19.3% after perineal procedures, with abdominal-versus-perineal risk ratio 0.50 not reaching significance.^[43] In women with concomitant pelvic-organ prolapse, choose the abdominal route: perineal repair with prolapse recurred in 57.1% over 23.7 months against 3.8% over 95.7 months for abdominal repair without prolapse, and perineal-with-prolapse carried a 10-fold hazard against abdominal-with-prolapse.^[7]

Internal prolapse and obstructed defecation — STARR numbers and the algorithm

Stapled transanal rectal resection answers conservatively refractory outlet obstruction with minor morbidity: response rates up to 90% with recurrence at most 18% at 68 months.^[46] The 450-case 10-year series prices the admission: mean operating time 30.2 minutes with 90.7% discharged at 24 hours.^[47] The wider rectal-excision literature for constipation (47 studies, 8340 patients) reports mean operating time 44 minutes, stay 3 days, overall morbidity 16.9% — lowest after the Contour Transtar at 8.9% — with no mortality in 5896 patients.^[48] Keep internal prolapse inside the algorithm above: dynamic imaging plus Oxford scoring, multidisciplinary decision, medical treatment first.^[45]

Trends, variability, and the exam close

Ireland's population series (2648 admissions, 39.3% operated — perineal resection 47.2%, abdominal rectopexy with or without resection 45.1%) shows operative intervention rising from 25 to 42 per million with laparoscopy increasing, abdominal patients younger than perineal (64.1 against 75.2 years) at similar comorbidity.^[49] The 19-year single-centre evolution (372 patients) moved perineal share from 22% to 79% as comorbidity concentrated perineally (61% against 30%) with morbidity equivalent at 14% against 20%.^[50] Long follow-up disciplines the comparison: 93 patients over 19 years with 32% recurrence at median 82 months — posterior suture 31%, Delorme 53%, ventral mesh 14%.^[51] The tailored 268-patient algorithm over 21 years (151 internal, 117 external) holds mortality at 0.4% with external-perineal recurrence 16% against external-abdominal 11.9% and internal-perineal persistent constipation in 52.7%.^[52] Internationally there is still no consensus: in a healthy patient 90% of surveyed surgeons choose a minimally invasive abdominal approach (ventral rectopexy 56%, suture 31%), while four-fifths still choose perineal in the older comorbid patient.^[6]

Revision summary

Full-thickness prolapse is intussusception made visible — confirm mechanism on defecography, screen the other pelvic compartments, and tailor perineal against abdominal by fitness, anatomy and expectations.^[2][4][7] Perineal surgery counsels 12 to 43% recurrence depending on procedure and follow-up — Altemeier beats Delorme on recurrence but pays in dehiscence and days — while resection rectopexy beats Delorme decisively in the only randomisation.^[10][11][54] Abdominal surgery, especially mesh rectopexy, recurs least — 2.8% weighted for ventral mesh — with mobilisation depth as the one technical predictor and fixation and access as non-predictors.^[19][16] Mesh consent runs 1.4% mesh-related against 9.2% any-complication with no mesh-type winner; function mostly improves with small de-novo tails; and every recurrence figure travels with its months.^{[24][25][27][13]}

References55ShowHide

1. [1]van der Schans EM, Paulides TJC, Wijffels NA, et al. Management of patients with rectal prolapse: the 2017 Dutch guidelines. Tech Coloproctol, 2018.PMID 30099626
2. [2]Mackle EJ, Parks TG The pathogenesis and pathophysiology of rectal prolapse and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol, 1986.PMID 3536217
3. [3]Hotouras A, Murphy J, Boyle DJ, et al. Assessment of female patients with rectal intussusception and prolapse: is this a progressive spectrum of disease? Dis Colon Rectum, 2013.PMID 23652754
4. [4]Kelvin FM, Maglinte DD, Benson JT Evacuation proctography (defecography): an aid to the investigation of pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol, 1994.PMID 8290201
5. [5]Bordeianou L, Hicks CW, Kaiser AM, et al. Rectal prolapse: an overview of clinical features, diagnosis, and patient-specific management strategies. J Gastrointest Surg, 2014.PMID 24352613
6. [6]Kelley JK, Hagen ER, Gurland B, et al. The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse. BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol, 2023.PMID 38020494
7. [7]Catanzarite T, Klaristenfeld DD, Tomassi MJ, et al. Recurrence of Rectal Prolapse After Surgical Repair in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum, 2018.PMID 29528907
8. [8]Van de Bruaene C, De Schepper H, Surmont M, et al. Guideline on Pelvic Floor Disorders: consensus on Obstructed Defecation Syndrome (ODS). Acta Gastroenterol Belg, 2026.PMID 42417642
9. [9]Schena CA, Ascanelli S, Grossi U, et al. 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2025.PMID 41099852
10. [10]Bhattacharya P, Hussain MI, Zaman S, et al. Delorme's vs. Altemeier's in the management of rectal procidentia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2023.PMID 38041773
11. [11]Herrle F, Sandra-Petrescu F, Rothenhoefer S, et al. Laparoscopic Resection Rectopexy Versus Delorme's Procedure In Full-thickness Rectal Prolapse: A Randomized Multicenter Trial (DELORES-RCT). Ann Surg, 2025.PMID 40151926
12. [12]Plaskett J, Baigrie R, Thomson SR Recurrence after Delorme's procedure in a single and multi-surgeon setting. S Afr J Surg, 2020.PMID 32644311
13. [13]Schabl L, Hull TL, Ban KA, et al. Recurrence Rates and Risk Factors in the Altemeier Procedure for Rectal Prolapse: A Multicenter Study. Dis Colon Rectum, 2024.PMID 39087690
14. [14]Altomare DF, Binda G, Ganio E, et al. Long-term outcome of Altemeier's procedure for rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum, 2009.PMID 19404077
15. [15]Tiengtianthum R, Jensen CC, Goldberg SM, et al. Clinical outcomes of perineal proctectomy among patients of advanced age. Dis Colon Rectum, 2014.PMID 25285697
16. [16]Bishawi M, Foppa C, Tou S, et al. Recurrence of rectal prolapse following rectopexy: a pooled analysis of 532 patients. Colorectal Dis, 2016.PMID 26476263
17. [17]Emile SH, Khan SM, Garoufalia Z, et al. A network meta-analysis of surgical treatments of complete rectal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol, 2023.PMID 37150800
18. [18]Tou S, Brown SR, Nelson RL Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2015.PMID 26599079
19. [19]Emile SH, Elfeki H, Shalaby M, et al. Outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness external rectal prolapse: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of the predictors for recurrence. Surg Endosc, 2019.PMID 31041515
20. [20]Faucheron JL, Trilling B, Girard E, et al. Anterior rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: Technical and functional results. World J Gastroenterol, 2015.PMID 25945021
21. [21]Randall J, Smyth E, McCarthy K, et al. Outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse. Colorectal Dis, 2014.PMID 25110205
22. [22]Mackenzie H, Dixon AR Proficiency gain curve and predictors of outcome for laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Surgery, 2014.PMID 24929765
23. [23]Portier G, Iovino F, Lazorthes F Surgery for rectal prolapse: Orr-Loygue ventral rectopexy with limited dissection prevents postoperative-induced constipation without increasing recurrence. Dis Colon Rectum, 2006.PMID 16830210
24. [24]Hess GF, Nocera F, Taha-Mehlitz S, et al. Mesh-associated complications in minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc, 2024.PMID 39516323
25. [25]van der Schans EM, Boom MA, El Moumni M, et al. Mesh-related complications and recurrence after ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic versus biologic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol, 2022.PMID 34812970
26. [26]Müller PC, Berchtold C, Kuemmerli C, et al. Spondylodiscitis after minimally invasive recto- and colpo-sacropexy: Report of a case and systematic review of the literature. J Minim Access Surg, 2020.PMID 30416143
27. [27]Boons P, Collinson R, Cunningham C, et al. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse improves constipation and avoids de novo constipation. Colorectal Dis, 2010.PMID 19486104
28. [28]Tsunoda A, Takahashi T, Matsuda S, et al. Midterm functional outcome after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse. Asian J Endosc Surg, 2020.PMID 30920167
29. [29]Hidaka J, Elfeki H, Duelund-Jakobsen J, et al. Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study. EClinicalMedicine, 2019.PMID 31832616
30. [30]Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Arun C, et al. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy versus posterior sutured rectopexy for management of complete rectal prolapse. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2021.PMID 33624175
31. [31]Russell MM, Read TE, Roberts PL, et al. Complications after rectal prolapse surgery: does approach matter? Dis Colon Rectum, 2012.PMID 22426270
32. [32]Fleming FJ, Kim MJ, Gunzler D, et al. It's the procedure not the patient: the operative approach is independently associated with an increased risk of complications after rectal prolapse repair. Colorectal Dis, 2012.PMID 21692964
33. [33]Jochum SB, Belkovsky M, Kirschling S, et al. Incidence and Risk Factors for Venous Thromboembolism Events After Rectal Prolapse Surgery. Dis Colon Rectum, 2025.PMID 40470798
34. [34]Brunner M, Roth H, Günther K, et al. Ventral rectopexy with biological mesh: short-term functional results. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2018.PMID 29442156
35. [35]Fuschillo G, Selvaggi L, Cuellar-Gomez H, et al. Comparison between perineal and abdominal approaches for the surgical treatment of recurrent external rectal prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2025.PMID 39875708
36. [36]Rzadkowski S, Ciesielski P, Kolodziejczak M Managing recurrent rectal prolapse in women: a single-center study. Front Surg, 2025.PMID 41488880
37. [37]Laitakari KE, Mäkelä-Kaikkonen JK, Kairaluoma M, et al. Redo ventral rectopexy: is it worthwhile? Tech Coloproctol, 2021.PMID 33151385
38. [38]Habeeb TAAM, Podda M, Chiaretti M, et al. Comparative study of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus perineal stapler resection for external full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients: enhanced outcomes and reduced recurrence rates-a retrospective cohort study. Tech Coloproctol, 2024.PMID 38619626
39. [39]Fu CW, Stevenson AR Risk Factors for Recurrence After Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum, 2017.PMID 28059914
40. [40]Nugent E, Spivak A, Gurland BH, et al. Does the Length of the Prolapsed Rectum Impact Outcome of Surgical Repair? Dis Colon Rectum, 2021.PMID 33463998
41. [41]Ramanujam PS, Venkatesh KS, Fietz MJ Perineal excision of rectal procidentia in elderly high-risk patients. A ten-year experience. Dis Colon Rectum, 1994.PMID 7924710
42. [42]Villanueva Sáenz E, Martínez Hernández-Magro P, Alvarez-Tostado Fernández JF Helicoidal suture: alternative treatment for complete rectal prolapse in high-risk patients. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2003.PMID 12458381
43. [43]Emile SH, Wignakumar A, Horesh N, et al. Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse in male patients. Tech Coloproctol, 2024.PMID 39538028
44. [44]Franceschilli L, Varvaras D, Capuano I, et al. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using biologic mesh for the treatment of obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse: a critical appraisal of the first 100 cases. Tech Coloproctol, 2015.PMID 25577276
45. [45]Cariou de Vergie L, Venara A, Duchalais E, et al. Internal rectal prolapse: Definition, assessment and management in 2016. J Visc Surg, 2017.PMID 27865742
46. [46]Isbert C, Germer CT [Transanal procedure for functional bowel diseases]. Chirurg, 2013.PMID 23263683
47. [47]Guttadauro A, Chiarelli M, Maternini M, et al. Value and limits of stapled transanal rectal repair for obstructed defecation syndrome: 10 years-experience with 450 cases. Asian J Surg, 2018.PMID 28693959
48. [48]Mercer-Jones M, Grossi U, Pares D, et al. Surgery for constipation: systematic review and practice recommendations: Results III: Rectal wall excisional procedures (Rectal Excision). Colorectal Dis, 2017.PMID 28960928
49. [49]Rogers AC, McCawley N, Hanly AM, et al. Trends in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a population analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2018.PMID 29502314
50. [50]Kim DS, Tsang CB, Wong WD, et al. Complete rectal prolapse: evolution of management and results. Dis Colon Rectum, 1999.PMID 10215045
51. [51]Gleditsch D, Wexels WA, Nesbakken A Surgical options and trends in treating rectal prolapse: long-term results in a 19-year follow-up study. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2018.PMID 30415286
52. [52]Pescatori M, Zbar AP Tailored surgery for internal and external rectal prolapse: functional results of 268 patients operated upon by a single surgeon over a 21-year period*. Colorectal Dis, 2009.PMID 18637923
53. [53]Albayati S, Chen P, Morgan MJ, et al. Robotic vs. laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol, 2019.PMID 31254202
54. [54]Fan K, Cao AM, Barto W, et al. Perineal stapled prolapse resection for external rectal prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis, 2020.PMID 32865320
55. [55]Hatch Q, Steele SR Rectal prolapse and intussusception. Gastroenterol Clin North Am, 2013.PMID 24280403