Digital assessment of lower rectum fixity in rectal prolapse (DALR) : a simple clinical anatomical test to determine the most suitable approach (abdominal versus perineal) for repair
Selection of an appropriate approach to treat full thickness rectal prolapse remains problematic and controversial. We propose that rectal prolapse may be classified as 'low type' (true rectal prolapse) or 'high type' (intussusception of the sigmoid with a fixed lower rectum). Th...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Surgical and radiologic anatomy (English ed.) 2005-12, Vol.27 (5), p.414-419 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 419 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 414 |
container_title | Surgical and radiologic anatomy (English ed.) |
container_volume | 27 |
creator | MARZOUK, Deya RAMDASS, Michael J HAJI, Amyn AKHTAR, Mansoor |
description | Selection of an appropriate approach to treat full thickness rectal prolapse remains problematic and controversial. We propose that rectal prolapse may be classified as 'low type' (true rectal prolapse) or 'high type' (intussusception of the sigmoid with a fixed lower rectum). This assessment can be made via a simple clinical test of digital rectal assessment of lower rectal fixity ('the hook test') based on anatomic changes in rectal prolapse to guide the selection process. In cases with the low-type prolapse, a perineal approach is appropriate (either Delorme's procedure, or rectosigmoidectomy with or without pelvic floor repair). For the high type, an abdominal rectopexy with or without high anterior resection is needed. Retrospective analysis of our cases treated over the last 6 years showed a recurrence rate of 6% in perineal procedures and 0% in abdominal rectopexy combined with resection to date. We believe that employing our simple test and classification can contribute to better patient selection for either approach, minimize anaesthetic and surgical risks and also result in lower recurrence rates. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00276-005-0010-y |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68854722</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68854722</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-8c799e291bc407fdf80a073be1b32dc5b472267f4f94077c8db8536153c101613</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkd-K1DAUxoMo7rj6AN5IEFx2L6pJM21a75Zd_8GAIHod0vTEzdI2NSfVnRfz-TzdGViQEBKS3_cl53yMvZTirRRCv0MhSl0XQlQ0pSj2j9hGlrotmkrqx2wjWiUKKVRzwp4h3goCpWyeshNZS1WXutqwv9fhZ8h24BYREEeYMo-eD_EPJJ7A5WXkPtyFvOdhuj8gdk5xsDMCP7--3H274O-55RjGeQDuhjAFt_pNNsfxfpsBM8-R95AhjWECnm-Aj5FOcaHHO9LZmUytu-HntutJN5HuNyRckM-QSGOHC-7j-qfZhvScPfF2QHhxXE_Zj48fvl99LnZfP325utwVTlV1Lhqn2xbKVnZuK7TvfSOs0KoD2amyd1W31WVZa7_1Ld1r1_RdU6laVspJsTbplJ0dfOl3vxaqw4wBHQyDnSAuaOqmqVYPAl__B97GJVEVaErR1JqwmiB5gFyKiAm8mVMYbdobKcyaqDkkaigosyZq9qR5dTReuhH6B8UxQgLeHAGL1G2f7OQCPnBaqZKG-get6arr</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>208678546</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Digital assessment of lower rectum fixity in rectal prolapse (DALR) : a simple clinical anatomical test to determine the most suitable approach (abdominal versus perineal) for repair</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>MARZOUK, Deya ; RAMDASS, Michael J ; HAJI, Amyn ; AKHTAR, Mansoor</creator><creatorcontrib>MARZOUK, Deya ; RAMDASS, Michael J ; HAJI, Amyn ; AKHTAR, Mansoor</creatorcontrib><description>Selection of an appropriate approach to treat full thickness rectal prolapse remains problematic and controversial. We propose that rectal prolapse may be classified as 'low type' (true rectal prolapse) or 'high type' (intussusception of the sigmoid with a fixed lower rectum). This assessment can be made via a simple clinical test of digital rectal assessment of lower rectal fixity ('the hook test') based on anatomic changes in rectal prolapse to guide the selection process. In cases with the low-type prolapse, a perineal approach is appropriate (either Delorme's procedure, or rectosigmoidectomy with or without pelvic floor repair). For the high type, an abdominal rectopexy with or without high anterior resection is needed. Retrospective analysis of our cases treated over the last 6 years showed a recurrence rate of 6% in perineal procedures and 0% in abdominal rectopexy combined with resection to date. We believe that employing our simple test and classification can contribute to better patient selection for either approach, minimize anaesthetic and surgical risks and also result in lower recurrence rates.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0930-1038</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1279-8517</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00276-005-0010-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16136275</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin: Springer</publisher><subject>Abdomen - surgery ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Anatomy & physiology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Colectomy ; Colon ; Colon, Sigmoid - pathology ; Colonic Diseases - classification ; Colonic Diseases - surgery ; Digital Rectal Examination ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen ; General aspects ; Humans ; Intussusception - classification ; Intussusception - surgery ; Male ; Medical diagnosis ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Other diseases. Semiology ; Patient Care Planning ; Perineum - surgery ; Rectal Prolapse - classification ; Rectal Prolapse - surgery ; Rectum - pathology ; Recurrence ; Retrospective Studies ; Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus ; Surgery</subject><ispartof>Surgical and radiologic anatomy (English ed.), 2005-12, Vol.27 (5), p.414-419</ispartof><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-8c799e291bc407fdf80a073be1b32dc5b472267f4f94077c8db8536153c101613</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-8c799e291bc407fdf80a073be1b32dc5b472267f4f94077c8db8536153c101613</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17332323$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16136275$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>MARZOUK, Deya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RAMDASS, Michael J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HAJI, Amyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>AKHTAR, Mansoor</creatorcontrib><title>Digital assessment of lower rectum fixity in rectal prolapse (DALR) : a simple clinical anatomical test to determine the most suitable approach (abdominal versus perineal) for repair</title><title>Surgical and radiologic anatomy (English ed.)</title><addtitle>Surg Radiol Anat</addtitle><description>Selection of an appropriate approach to treat full thickness rectal prolapse remains problematic and controversial. We propose that rectal prolapse may be classified as 'low type' (true rectal prolapse) or 'high type' (intussusception of the sigmoid with a fixed lower rectum). This assessment can be made via a simple clinical test of digital rectal assessment of lower rectal fixity ('the hook test') based on anatomic changes in rectal prolapse to guide the selection process. In cases with the low-type prolapse, a perineal approach is appropriate (either Delorme's procedure, or rectosigmoidectomy with or without pelvic floor repair). For the high type, an abdominal rectopexy with or without high anterior resection is needed. Retrospective analysis of our cases treated over the last 6 years showed a recurrence rate of 6% in perineal procedures and 0% in abdominal rectopexy combined with resection to date. We believe that employing our simple test and classification can contribute to better patient selection for either approach, minimize anaesthetic and surgical risks and also result in lower recurrence rates.</description><subject>Abdomen - surgery</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Anatomy & physiology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Colectomy</subject><subject>Colon</subject><subject>Colon, Sigmoid - pathology</subject><subject>Colonic Diseases - classification</subject><subject>Colonic Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>Digital Rectal Examination</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intussusception - classification</subject><subject>Intussusception - surgery</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Other diseases. Semiology</subject><subject>Patient Care Planning</subject><subject>Perineum - surgery</subject><subject>Rectal Prolapse - classification</subject><subject>Rectal Prolapse - surgery</subject><subject>Rectum - pathology</subject><subject>Recurrence</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><issn>0930-1038</issn><issn>1279-8517</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkd-K1DAUxoMo7rj6AN5IEFx2L6pJM21a75Zd_8GAIHod0vTEzdI2NSfVnRfz-TzdGViQEBKS3_cl53yMvZTirRRCv0MhSl0XQlQ0pSj2j9hGlrotmkrqx2wjWiUKKVRzwp4h3goCpWyeshNZS1WXutqwv9fhZ8h24BYREEeYMo-eD_EPJJ7A5WXkPtyFvOdhuj8gdk5xsDMCP7--3H274O-55RjGeQDuhjAFt_pNNsfxfpsBM8-R95AhjWECnm-Aj5FOcaHHO9LZmUytu-HntutJN5HuNyRckM-QSGOHC-7j-qfZhvScPfF2QHhxXE_Zj48fvl99LnZfP325utwVTlV1Lhqn2xbKVnZuK7TvfSOs0KoD2amyd1W31WVZa7_1Ld1r1_RdU6laVspJsTbplJ0dfOl3vxaqw4wBHQyDnSAuaOqmqVYPAl__B97GJVEVaErR1JqwmiB5gFyKiAm8mVMYbdobKcyaqDkkaigosyZq9qR5dTReuhH6B8UxQgLeHAGL1G2f7OQCPnBaqZKG-get6arr</recordid><startdate>20051201</startdate><enddate>20051201</enddate><creator>MARZOUK, Deya</creator><creator>RAMDASS, Michael J</creator><creator>HAJI, Amyn</creator><creator>AKHTAR, Mansoor</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20051201</creationdate><title>Digital assessment of lower rectum fixity in rectal prolapse (DALR) : a simple clinical anatomical test to determine the most suitable approach (abdominal versus perineal) for repair</title><author>MARZOUK, Deya ; RAMDASS, Michael J ; HAJI, Amyn ; AKHTAR, Mansoor</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-8c799e291bc407fdf80a073be1b32dc5b472267f4f94077c8db8536153c101613</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Abdomen - surgery</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Anatomy & physiology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Colectomy</topic><topic>Colon</topic><topic>Colon, Sigmoid - pathology</topic><topic>Colonic Diseases - classification</topic><topic>Colonic Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>Digital Rectal Examination</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intussusception - classification</topic><topic>Intussusception - surgery</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Other diseases. Semiology</topic><topic>Patient Care Planning</topic><topic>Perineum - surgery</topic><topic>Rectal Prolapse - classification</topic><topic>Rectal Prolapse - surgery</topic><topic>Rectum - pathology</topic><topic>Recurrence</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>MARZOUK, Deya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RAMDASS, Michael J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HAJI, Amyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>AKHTAR, Mansoor</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Surgical and radiologic anatomy (English ed.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>MARZOUK, Deya</au><au>RAMDASS, Michael J</au><au>HAJI, Amyn</au><au>AKHTAR, Mansoor</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Digital assessment of lower rectum fixity in rectal prolapse (DALR) : a simple clinical anatomical test to determine the most suitable approach (abdominal versus perineal) for repair</atitle><jtitle>Surgical and radiologic anatomy (English ed.)</jtitle><addtitle>Surg Radiol Anat</addtitle><date>2005-12-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>414</spage><epage>419</epage><pages>414-419</pages><issn>0930-1038</issn><eissn>1279-8517</eissn><abstract>Selection of an appropriate approach to treat full thickness rectal prolapse remains problematic and controversial. We propose that rectal prolapse may be classified as 'low type' (true rectal prolapse) or 'high type' (intussusception of the sigmoid with a fixed lower rectum). This assessment can be made via a simple clinical test of digital rectal assessment of lower rectal fixity ('the hook test') based on anatomic changes in rectal prolapse to guide the selection process. In cases with the low-type prolapse, a perineal approach is appropriate (either Delorme's procedure, or rectosigmoidectomy with or without pelvic floor repair). For the high type, an abdominal rectopexy with or without high anterior resection is needed. Retrospective analysis of our cases treated over the last 6 years showed a recurrence rate of 6% in perineal procedures and 0% in abdominal rectopexy combined with resection to date. We believe that employing our simple test and classification can contribute to better patient selection for either approach, minimize anaesthetic and surgical risks and also result in lower recurrence rates.</abstract><cop>Berlin</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>16136275</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00276-005-0010-y</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0930-1038 |
ispartof | Surgical and radiologic anatomy (English ed.), 2005-12, Vol.27 (5), p.414-419 |
issn | 0930-1038 1279-8517 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68854722 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Abdomen - surgery Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Anatomy & physiology Biological and medical sciences Colectomy Colon Colon, Sigmoid - pathology Colonic Diseases - classification Colonic Diseases - surgery Digital Rectal Examination Female Follow-Up Studies Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen General aspects Humans Intussusception - classification Intussusception - surgery Male Medical diagnosis Medical sciences Middle Aged Other diseases. Semiology Patient Care Planning Perineum - surgery Rectal Prolapse - classification Rectal Prolapse - surgery Rectum - pathology Recurrence Retrospective Studies Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus Surgery |
title | Digital assessment of lower rectum fixity in rectal prolapse (DALR) : a simple clinical anatomical test to determine the most suitable approach (abdominal versus perineal) for repair |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T23%3A10%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Digital%20assessment%20of%20lower%20rectum%20fixity%20in%20rectal%20prolapse%20(DALR)%20:%20a%20simple%20clinical%20anatomical%20test%20to%20determine%20the%20most%20suitable%20approach%20(abdominal%20versus%20perineal)%20for%20repair&rft.jtitle=Surgical%20and%20radiologic%20anatomy%20(English%20ed.)&rft.au=MARZOUK,%20Deya&rft.date=2005-12-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=414&rft.epage=419&rft.pages=414-419&rft.issn=0930-1038&rft.eissn=1279-8517&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00276-005-0010-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68854722%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=208678546&rft_id=info:pmid/16136275&rfr_iscdi=true |