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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical and radiologic anatomy (English ed.) 2005-12, Vol.27 (5), p.414-419
Hauptverfasser: MARZOUK, Deya, RAMDASS, Michael J, HAJI, Amyn, AKHTAR, Mansoor
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 &amp; 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&amp;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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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