| Summary: | INTRODUCTION: Rectal prolapse is still a disease that causes social problems with an unknown etiology. In our study, we aimed to compare the results of the presacral mesh application and perineal surgical procedures performed in our clinic and to determine the effectiveness of the methods. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2020, perineal surgery was performed only in patients with rectal prolapse with high comorbidity, and presacral mesh without resection was applied to those with low comorbidity. In the preoperative and postoperative follow-up, the symptoms of the patients were standardized and compared according to Rome II and Boutsis Ellis criteria. RESULTS: The results of 20 patients who underwent abdominal (n=15) and perineal procedures (n=5) due to rectal prolapse were retrospectively evaluated. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups between age (p=0.041), American Society of Anesthesiology score (p=0.000), and type of anesthesia applied (p=0.016). In the abdominal group, the complaint of constipation was found to be statistically significantly different in the preoperative and postoperative evaluations (p=0.000). There was no significant difference in the perineal group (p=0.151). Incontinence complaints were significantly decreased postoperatively in the abdominal group (p= 0.000), while there was no significant difference in the number of patients whose symptoms continued in the perineal group despite the decrease in the stages of symptoms (p=0.07). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Presacral mesh application alone is an effective minimally invasive method that can be applied with a low risk of complications in patients with rectal prolapse.
|
|---|