ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01656369Updated Nov 23, 2015

Comparative Study Between Delorme Operation With or Without Postanal Repair in Treatment of Complete Rectal Prolapse

An interventional study of Group I: delorme operation only. and delorme operation with post anal repair in Rectal Prolapse, sponsored by Mansoura University. Completed at 1 site in Egypt. Open to participants aged 16 Years to 64 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2015-11-23.

Sponsored by Mansoura University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
82
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
16 Years to 64 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The aim of the study is to compare Delorme operation alone or with post anal repair and levatorplasty for treating complete rectal prolapse.consecutive patients who were treated for complete rectal prolapse at the Colorectal Surgery Unit were eligible for the study.The patients were randomized into two groups: Group I: consisted of patients were subjected to delorme operation only. Group II: consisted of patients were subjected to delorme operation with post anal repair and levatorplasty.

Read the detailed description

Rectal procidentia frequently occurs in older women. Patients usually present with obstructed defecation or fecal incontinence. This study is to compare Delorme operation alone or with post anal repair and levatorplasty for treating complete rectal prolapse. Consecutive patients who were treated for complete rectal prolapse at our Colorectal Surgery Unit were eligible for the study. Exclusion criteria include pregnant female, any patients with previous anal surgery, pudendal nerve neuropathy, anal fistula and sepsis or coagulopathy. All patients underwent clinical evaluation, proctoscopic examination, and sigmoidoscopy. Anorectal physiology studies consisted of anal manometry and measurement of pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (PNTML) to exclude pudendal nerve entrapment syndrome. Patients enrolled in the study were randomized into three groups using the closed envelope method. The envelopes were drawn and opened by a nurse not otherwise engaged in the study in the operating room. The patients were randomized into two groups: Group I: consisted of patients were subjected to delorme operation only. Group II: consisted of patients were subjected to delorme operation with post anal repair and levatorplasty.

02

Conditions studied

  • Rectal Prolapse

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Delorme operation,incontinence
03

In context

Rectal Prolapse

55 studies on the registry are indexed under Rectal Prolapse; 12 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 82 is above the median of 55 across 34 interventional studies indexed under Rectal Prolapse.

Browse Rectal Prolapse studies →

Lead sponsor

Mansoura University is the lead sponsor of 1,119 studies on the registry; 183 are open to participants now.

Of its 9 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
16 Years to 64 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • complete rectal prolapse

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • pregnant female
  • any patients with previous anal surgery
  • pudendal nerve neuropathy
  • anal fistula and sepsis or coagulopathy
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Investigator)
Enrollment
82 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Group I delorme operation only.

    A circumferential incision was made in the rectal mucosa approximately 1 cm away from the dentate line. Using electrocautery, the mucosa was stripped to the apex of the prolapse. The muscular layers of the rectal wall were reduced as the mucosa was stripped. Mucosal stripping continued past the apex of the prolapse and then continued inside the prolapsed segment to a point internally that is equivalent to the point of the initial mucosal incision. The underling muscle was plicated by vicryl 2/0.The muscle bite was taken longitudinally from 8 sides to reach a horizontal line of plication at the end. The mucosa was then reanastomosed. Postoperatively, minimal pain medication was required. Early ambulation was encouraged, and patients' diets were advanced as tolerated.

    Procedure: Group I: delorme operation only.

  • Active comparator
    delorme operation with post anal repair

    In group II : post anal repair was added by making transverse incision 7cm behind the anal canal.dissection of intersphincteric plain,plication of internal sphincter by using 3/0 vicryl.The levator ani and external sphincter were then sutured to each other by vicryl 2/0 behind the anal canal followed by skin closure without drain.

    Procedure: delorme operation with post anal repair

Interventions

  • ProcedureGroup I: delorme operation only.

    A circumferential incision was made in the rectal mucosa approximately 1 cm away from the dentate line. Using electrocautery, the mucosa was stripped to the apex of the prolapse. The muscular layers of the rectal wall were reduced as the mucosa was stripped. Mucosal stripping continued past the apex of the prolapse and then continued inside the prolapsed segment to a point internally that is equivalent to the point of the initial mucosal incision. The underling muscle was plicated by vicryl 2/0.The muscle bite was taken longitudinally from 8 sides to reach a horizontal line of plication at the end. The mucosa was then reanastomosed.

    Also known as: Group I

  • Proceduredelorme operation with post anal repair

    In group II : post anal repair was added by making transverse incision 7cm behind the anal canal.dissection of intersphincteric plain,plication of internal sphincter by using 3/0 vicryl.The levator ani and external sphincter were then sutured to each other by vicryl 2/0 behind the anal canal followed by skin closure without drain.

    Also known as: Group II

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. recurrence rate

    recurrence rate

    Time frame: one year postoperative

Secondary outcomes

  1. changes of bowel habit

    changes of bowel habit

    Time frame: early postoperative, after 1 year

  2. incontinence

    incontinence

    Time frame: 30 day postoperative,and one year postoperative

  3. manometric study

    manometric study (resting pressure, squeezing pressure)

    Time frame: one year postoperative

  4. complications

    stricture, disruption

    Time frame: 30 day postoperative

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Ayman El Nakeeb
    Mansoura, Egypt
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Youssef M, Thabet W, El Nakeeb A, Magdy A, Alla EA, El Nabeey MA, Fouda el Y, Omar W, Farid M. Comparative study between Delorme operation with or without postanal repair and levateroplasty in treatment of complete rectal prolapse. Int J Surg. 2013;11(1):52-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2012.11.011. Epub 2012 Nov 24. PubMed 23187047 ↗
09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
Not marked actual or estimatedDates not marked actual or estimated

The record gives a start of Jan 2007, a primary completion of Jun 2011 and a completion of Jun 2011. It does not say whether these dates are actual or estimated.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jul 26, 2012
First posted
Aug 3, 2012
Start
Jan 2007
Primary completionActual
Jun 2011
CompletionActual
Jun 2011
Last update
Nov 23, 2015
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Nov 23, 2015, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01656369
Responsible party
Ayman El Nakeeb (mansoura university, Mansoura University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 3, 2012
Start date
Jan 2007
Primary completion
Jun 2011
Completion
Jun 2011
Last update
Nov 23, 2015

Study contacts

ayman el nakeeb, MD
principal investigator · Mansoura University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2007. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion