Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 589–596 | Cite as

Management of patients with rectal prolapse: the 2017 Dutch guidelines

  • E. M. van der SchansEmail author
  • T. J. C. Paulides
  • N. A. Wijffels
  • E. C. J. Consten
Clinical Guidelines



Rectal prolapse—both external rectal prolapse and internal rectal prolapse—is a disabling condition. In view of the overwhelming number of surgical procedures described for the treatment of rectal prolapse, a comprehensive update concerning the diagnostic and therapeutic pathway for this condition is required to draw recommendations for clinical practice. This initiative was commissioned by the Dutch Association for Surgery (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Heelkunde) as a multidisciplinary collaboration.


Nine questions outlining the diagnostic approach, conservative and surgical management of rectal prolapse were selected. A systematic literature search for evidence was then conducted in the Medline and Embase databases.


Recommendations included diagnostic approach, methods to assess complaints of fecal incontinence and/or obstructive defecation and treatment options, both conservative and surgical. A level of evidence was assigned to each statement following the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.


These guidelines for clinical practice are useful in the diagnosis and treatment of rectal prolapse. There are many statements requiring a higher level of evidence due to a lack of studies.


Rectal prolapse Rectopexy Practice guideline 



The authors are grateful to the original Dutch drafting committee: S.J. van der Hagen, A. Pronk, R.J.F. Felt-Bersma, M. Stegeman, E.J.L. Bosboom, J.A.J. Kalkdijk, D.A. van Reijn and A.H.P. Meier. The authors’ gratefulness also extends to the advisory group: G.G.A. Malmberg, T. Boele, W.A. Bemelman, S. Festen, D.D.E. Zimmerman. The authors also warmly acknowledge E.A. Rake, H.L. Vreeken, W.A. van Enst.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Wijffels NA, Collinson R, Cunningham C, Lindsey I (2010) What is the natural history of internal rectal prolapse? Color Dis 12:822–830. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dvorkin LS, Knowles CH, Scott MS et al (2005) Rectal intussusception: characterization of symptomatology. Dis Colon Rectum 48:824–831. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Podzemny V, Pescatori LC, Pescatori M (2015) Management of obstructed defecation. World J Gastroenterol 21:1053–1060. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brouwers M, Kho M, Browman G et al (2010) AGREE next steps consortium. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare. CMAJ 182:E839–E842. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roovers JP, Everhardt E, Dietz V et al (2014) Dutch national guideline prolapse. NVOGGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schünemann H, Brozk J, Guyatt G, Oxman A (2013) GRADE handbook. Accessed 1 Dec 2017
  7. 7.
    Goei R, van Engelshoven J, Schouten H et al (1989) Anorectal function: defecographic measurement in asymptomatic subjects. Radiology 173:137–141. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freimanis M, Wald A, Caruana B, Bauman D (1991) Evacuation proctography in normal volunteers. Invest Radiol 26:581–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Selvaggi F, Pesce G, Scotto Di Carlo E et al (1990) Evaluation of normal subjects by defecographic technique. Dis Colon Rectum 33:698–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shorvon PJ, Mchugh S, Diamant NE et al (1989) Defecography in normal volunteers: results and implications. Gut 30:1737–1749CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faucheron JL, Barot S, Collomb D et al (2014) Dynamic cystocolpoproctography is superior to functional pelvic MRI in the diagnosis of posterior pelvic floor disorders: results of a prospective study. Color Dis 16:O240–O247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beer-Gabel M, Carter D (2015) Comparison of dynamic transperineal ultrasound and defecography for the evaluation of pelvic floor disorders. Int J Colorectal Dis 30:835–841. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steensma AB, Oom DM, Burger CW, Schouten WR (2010) Assessment of posterior compartment prolapse: a comparison of evacuation proctography and 3D transperineal ultrasound. Colorectal Dis 12:533–539. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weemhoff M, Kluivers KB, Govaert B et al (2013) Transperineal ultrasound compared to evacuation proctography for diagnosing enteroceles and intussusceptions. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:359–363. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Regadas FSP, Haas EM, Abbas MA et al (2011) Prospective multicenter trial comparing echodefecography with defecography in the assessment of anorectal dysfunction in patients with obstructed defecation. Dis Colon Rectum 54:686–692. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grasso RF, Piciucchi S, Quattrocchi CC et al (2007) Posterior pelvic floor disorders: a prospective comparison using introital ultrasound and colpocystodefecography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30:86–94. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Perniola G, Shek C, Chong CCW et al (2008) Defecation proctography and translabial ultrasound in the investigation of defecatory disorders. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:567–571. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ‘t Hoen LA, Utomo E, Schouten WR et al (2017) The fecal incontinence quality of life scale (FIQL) and fecal incontinence severity index (FISI): validation of the Dutch versions. Neurourol Urodyn 36:710–715. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bols EMJ, Hendriks HJM, Berghmans LCM et al (2013) Responsiveness and interpretability of incontinence severity scores and FIQL in patients with fecal incontinence: a secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 24:469–478. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Altomare DF, Spazzafumo L, Rinaldi M et al (2008) Set-up and statistical validation of a new scoring system for obstructed defaecation syndrome. Color Dis 10:84–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gosselink MP, Adusumilli S, Harmston C et al (2013) Impact of slow transit constipation on the outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for obstructed defaecation associated with high grade internal rectal prolapse. Color Dis 15:749–756. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sze EHM, Hobbs G (2009) Efficacy of methylcellulose and loperamide in managing fecal incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 88:766–771. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ehrenpreis E, Chang D, Eichenwald E (2007) Pharmacotherapy for fecal incontinence: a review. Dis Colon Rectum 50:641–649. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scarlett Y (2004) Medical management of fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 126:S55–S63. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Santoro G, Eitan B, Pryde A, Bartolo D (2000) Open study of low-dose amitriptyline in the treatment of patients with idiopathic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 43:1676–1682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hicks C, Weinstein M, Wakamatsu M et al (2014) In patients with rectoceles and obstructed defecation syndrome, surgery should be the option of last resort. Surgery 155:659–667. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Choi J, Hwang Y, Salum M et al (2001) Outcome and management of patients with large rectoanal intussusception. Am J Gastroenterol 96:740–744. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hwang YH, Person B, Choi JS et al (2006) Biofeedback therapy for rectal intussusception. Tech Coloproctol 10:11–16. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rao SSC, Rao SC (2014) Current and emerging treatment options for fecal incontinence. J Clin Gastroenterol 48:752–764CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chan DSY, Saklani A, Shah PR et al (2012) Rectal irrigation: a useful tool in the armamentarium for functional bowel disorders. Color Dis 14:748–752. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cunin D, Siproudhis L, Desfourneaux V et al (2013) No surgery for full-thickness rectal prolapse: what happens with continence? World J Surg 37:1297–1302. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mercer-Jones MA, D’Hoore A, Dixon AR et al (2014) Consensus on ventral rectopexy: report of a panel of experts. Color Dis 16:82–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Young MT, Jafari MD, Phelan MJ et al (2015) Surgical treatments for rectal prolapse: how does a perineal approach compare in the laparoscopic era? Surg Endosc 29:607–613. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Iersel JJ, Paulides TJC, Verheijen PM et al (2016) Current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external and internal rectal prolapse. World J Gastroenterol 22:4977–4987. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schwandner O, Hillemanns P (2016) Indikation, technik und ergebnisse der STARR-operation. Der Chir 87:909–917. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mäkelä-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Klintrup K et al (2014) Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a matched-pairs study of operative details and complications. Tech Coloproctol 18:151–155. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ohazuruike NL, Martellucci J, Menconi C et al (2014) Short-term results after STARR versus internal Delorme for obstructed defecation: a non-randomized prospective study. Updates Surg 66:151–156. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Roviaro G (2011) What is the benefit of a new stapler device in the surgical treatment of obstructed defecation? Three-year outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum 54:77–84. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Isbert C, Reibetanz J, Jayne DG et al (2010) Comparative study of contour transtar and STARR procedure for the treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS)—feasibility, morbidity and early functional results. Color Dis 12:901–908. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Renzi A, Brillantino A, Di Sarno G et al (2016) Evaluating the surgeons’ perception of difficulties of two techniques to perform STARR for obstructed defecation syndrome. Surg Innov 23:563–571. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tou S, Brown SR, Nelson RL (2015) Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD001758. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Solomon MJ, Young CJ, Eyers AA, Roberts RA (2002) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 89:35–39. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Boccasanta P, Rosati R, Venturi M et al (1998) Comparison of laparoscopic rectopexy with open technique in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse: clinical and functional results. Surg Laparosc Endosc 8:460–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Deen K, Grant E, Billingham C, Keighley M (1994) Abdominal resection rectopexy with pelvic floor repair versus perineal rectosigmoidectomy and pelvic floor repair for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 81:302–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Senapati A, Gray RG, Middleton LJ et al (2013) PROSPER: a randomised comparison of surgical treatments for rectal prolapse. Color Dis 15:858–868. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Karas JR, Uranues S, Altomare DF et al (2011) No rectopexy versus rectopexy following rectal mobilization for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum 54:29–34. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Luukkonen P, Mikkonen U, Järvinen H (1992) Abdominal rectopexy with sigmoidectomy vs. rectopexy alone for rectal prolapse: a prospective, randomized study. Int J Color Dis 7:219–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    McKee R, Lauder J, Poon F et al (1992) A prospective randomized study of abdominal rectopexy with and without sigmoidectomy in rectal prolapse. Surg Gynecol Obs 174:148–148Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ramage L, Georgiou P, Tekkis P, Tan E (2015) Is robotic ventral mesh rectopexy better than laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation? A meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 19:381–389. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    De Hoog DENM, Heemskerk J, Nieman FHM et al (2009) Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study. Int J Color Dis 24:1201–1206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mehmood RK, Parker J, Bhuvimanian L et al (2014) Short-term outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Is robotic superior? Int J Colorectal Dis 29:1113–1118. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Youssef M, Thabet W, El Nakeeb A et al (2013) Comparative study between Delorme operation with or without postanal repair and levateroplasty in treatment of complete rectal prolapse. Int J Surg 11:52–58. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chun SW, Pikarsky AJ, You SY et al (2004) Perineal rectosigmoidectomy for rectal prolapse: role of levatorplasty. Tech Coloproctol 8:3–9. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Evans C, Stevenson A, Sileri P et al (2015) A multicenter collaboration to assess the safety of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum 58:799–807. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rickert A, Kienle P, Kuthe A et al (2012) A randomised, multi-centre, prospective, observer and patient blind study to evaluate a non-absorbable polypropylene mesh vs. a partly absorbable mesh in incisional hernia repair. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 397:1225–1234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Li J, Ji Z, Zhang W, Li L (2015) The comparison of lightweight mesh and standard mesh in incisional hernia repair with the open sublay technique: the results of a meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 25:238–244. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Conze J, Krones CJ, Schumpelick V, Klinge U (2007) Incisional hernia: challenge of re-operations after mesh repair. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 392:453–457. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ladurner R, Chiapponi C, Linhuber Q, Mussack T (2011) Long term outcome and quality of life after open incisional hernia repair-light versus heavy weight meshes. BMC Surg 11:25. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schmidbauer S, Ladurner R, Hallfeldt K, Mussack T (2005) Heavy-weight versus low-weight polypropylene meshes for open sublay mesh repair of incisional hernia. Eur J Med Res 10:247–253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rothenhoefer S, Herrle F, Herold A et al (2012) DeloRes trial: study protocol for a randomized trial comparing two standardized surgical approaches in rectal prolapse—Delorme’s procedure versus resection rectopexy. Trials. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMeander Medical CentreAmersfoortThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of SurgerySt. Antonius HospitalNieuwegeinThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations