Surgical management of pediatric rectal prolapse: A survey of the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA)

Alfred Francois Trappey, Laura Galganski, Payam Saadai, Jacob Stephenson, Rebecca Stark, Diana L Farmer, Jacob C. Langer, Shinjiro Hirose

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: Many management options exist for the treatment of refractory rectal prolapse (RP) in children. Our goal was to characterize current practice patterns among active members of APSA. Methods: A 23-item questionnaire assessed the management of full-thickness RP for healthy children who have failed medical management. The survey was approved by our IRB and by the APSA Outcomes committee. Results: 236 surgeons participated. The respondents were geographically dispersed (44 states, 5 provinces). 32% of respondents had twenty or more years of clinical experience. 71% evaluated 1–5 RP patients in the last 2 years, while 5% evaluated > 10. 71% performed 0–1 procedure (operation or local therapy [LT]) for RP over 2 years. 59% would treat a 2-year-old patient differently than a 6-year-old with the same presentation, and were more likely to offer up-front surgery to a 6-year-old (26% vs 15%, p = 0.04), less likely to continue medical management indefinitely (2% vs 7%, p = 0.01), and more likely to perform resection with rectopexy (30% vs. 15%, p = 0.01). 71% perform LT as an initial intervention: injection sclerotherapy (59%), anal encirclement (8%), and sclerotherapy + anal encirclement (5%). 70% consider LT a failure after 1–3 attempts. If LT fails, surgical management consists of transabdominal rectopexy (46%), perineal proctectomy or proctosigmoidectomy (22%), transabdominal sigmoidectomy + rectopexy (22%), and posterior sagittal rectopexy (9%). Conclusions: There is wide variability in the surgical management of pediatric rectal prolapse. This suggests a need for development of processes to identify best practices and optimize outcomes for this condition.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Pediatric Surgery
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Rectal Prolapse
Pediatrics
Sclerotherapy
Therapeutics
Research Ethics Committees
Practice Guidelines
Surveys and Questionnaires
Injections

Keywords

  • Constipation
  • Pediatric colorectal surgery
  • Pediatric rectal prolapse
  • Rectal prolapse
  • Rectopexy
  • Sclerotherapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

Surgical management of pediatric rectal prolapse : A survey of the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA). / Trappey, Alfred Francois; Galganski, Laura; Saadai, Payam; Stephenson, Jacob; Stark, Rebecca; Farmer, Diana L; Langer, Jacob C.; Hirose, Shinjiro.

In: Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d3e673a43fd54922af513bb10e9cd97d,
title = "Surgical management of pediatric rectal prolapse: A survey of the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA)",
abstract = "Introduction: Many management options exist for the treatment of refractory rectal prolapse (RP) in children. Our goal was to characterize current practice patterns among active members of APSA. Methods: A 23-item questionnaire assessed the management of full-thickness RP for healthy children who have failed medical management. The survey was approved by our IRB and by the APSA Outcomes committee. Results: 236 surgeons participated. The respondents were geographically dispersed (44 states, 5 provinces). 32{\%} of respondents had twenty or more years of clinical experience. 71{\%} evaluated 1–5 RP patients in the last 2 years, while 5{\%} evaluated > 10. 71{\%} performed 0–1 procedure (operation or local therapy [LT]) for RP over 2 years. 59{\%} would treat a 2-year-old patient differently than a 6-year-old with the same presentation, and were more likely to offer up-front surgery to a 6-year-old (26{\%} vs 15{\%}, p = 0.04), less likely to continue medical management indefinitely (2{\%} vs 7{\%}, p = 0.01), and more likely to perform resection with rectopexy (30{\%} vs. 15{\%}, p = 0.01). 71{\%} perform LT as an initial intervention: injection sclerotherapy (59{\%}), anal encirclement (8{\%}), and sclerotherapy + anal encirclement (5{\%}). 70{\%} consider LT a failure after 1–3 attempts. If LT fails, surgical management consists of transabdominal rectopexy (46{\%}), perineal proctectomy or proctosigmoidectomy (22{\%}), transabdominal sigmoidectomy + rectopexy (22{\%}), and posterior sagittal rectopexy (9{\%}). Conclusions: There is wide variability in the surgical management of pediatric rectal prolapse. This suggests a need for development of processes to identify best practices and optimize outcomes for this condition.",
keywords = "Constipation, Pediatric colorectal surgery, Pediatric rectal prolapse, Rectal prolapse, Rectopexy, Sclerotherapy",
author = "Trappey, {Alfred Francois} and Laura Galganski and Payam Saadai and Jacob Stephenson and Rebecca Stark and Farmer, {Diana L} and Langer, {Jacob C.} and Shinjiro Hirose",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.02.017",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Pediatric Surgery",
issn = "0022-3468",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Surgical management of pediatric rectal prolapse

T2 - A survey of the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA)

AU - Trappey, Alfred Francois

AU - Galganski, Laura

AU - Saadai, Payam

AU - Stephenson, Jacob

AU - Stark, Rebecca

AU - Farmer, Diana L

AU - Langer, Jacob C.

AU - Hirose, Shinjiro

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Introduction: Many management options exist for the treatment of refractory rectal prolapse (RP) in children. Our goal was to characterize current practice patterns among active members of APSA. Methods: A 23-item questionnaire assessed the management of full-thickness RP for healthy children who have failed medical management. The survey was approved by our IRB and by the APSA Outcomes committee. Results: 236 surgeons participated. The respondents were geographically dispersed (44 states, 5 provinces). 32% of respondents had twenty or more years of clinical experience. 71% evaluated 1–5 RP patients in the last 2 years, while 5% evaluated > 10. 71% performed 0–1 procedure (operation or local therapy [LT]) for RP over 2 years. 59% would treat a 2-year-old patient differently than a 6-year-old with the same presentation, and were more likely to offer up-front surgery to a 6-year-old (26% vs 15%, p = 0.04), less likely to continue medical management indefinitely (2% vs 7%, p = 0.01), and more likely to perform resection with rectopexy (30% vs. 15%, p = 0.01). 71% perform LT as an initial intervention: injection sclerotherapy (59%), anal encirclement (8%), and sclerotherapy + anal encirclement (5%). 70% consider LT a failure after 1–3 attempts. If LT fails, surgical management consists of transabdominal rectopexy (46%), perineal proctectomy or proctosigmoidectomy (22%), transabdominal sigmoidectomy + rectopexy (22%), and posterior sagittal rectopexy (9%). Conclusions: There is wide variability in the surgical management of pediatric rectal prolapse. This suggests a need for development of processes to identify best practices and optimize outcomes for this condition.

AB - Introduction: Many management options exist for the treatment of refractory rectal prolapse (RP) in children. Our goal was to characterize current practice patterns among active members of APSA. Methods: A 23-item questionnaire assessed the management of full-thickness RP for healthy children who have failed medical management. The survey was approved by our IRB and by the APSA Outcomes committee. Results: 236 surgeons participated. The respondents were geographically dispersed (44 states, 5 provinces). 32% of respondents had twenty or more years of clinical experience. 71% evaluated 1–5 RP patients in the last 2 years, while 5% evaluated > 10. 71% performed 0–1 procedure (operation or local therapy [LT]) for RP over 2 years. 59% would treat a 2-year-old patient differently than a 6-year-old with the same presentation, and were more likely to offer up-front surgery to a 6-year-old (26% vs 15%, p = 0.04), less likely to continue medical management indefinitely (2% vs 7%, p = 0.01), and more likely to perform resection with rectopexy (30% vs. 15%, p = 0.01). 71% perform LT as an initial intervention: injection sclerotherapy (59%), anal encirclement (8%), and sclerotherapy + anal encirclement (5%). 70% consider LT a failure after 1–3 attempts. If LT fails, surgical management consists of transabdominal rectopexy (46%), perineal proctectomy or proctosigmoidectomy (22%), transabdominal sigmoidectomy + rectopexy (22%), and posterior sagittal rectopexy (9%). Conclusions: There is wide variability in the surgical management of pediatric rectal prolapse. This suggests a need for development of processes to identify best practices and optimize outcomes for this condition.

KW - Constipation

KW - Pediatric colorectal surgery

KW - Pediatric rectal prolapse

KW - Rectal prolapse

KW - Rectopexy

KW - Sclerotherapy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064075237&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064075237&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.02.017

DO - 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.02.017

M3 - Article

C2 - 30987759

AN - SCOPUS:85064075237

JO - Journal of Pediatric Surgery

JF - Journal of Pediatric Surgery

SN - 0022-3468

ER -