ClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT04893642Updated May 19, 2021

Swedish Rectal Prolapse Trial

An interventional study of Suture rectopexy and resection rectopexy in Rectal Prolapse, sponsored by Danderyd Hospital. Terminated at 12 sites in Sweden. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-05-19.

Sponsored by Danderyd Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Why this study was terminated
The study had planned to recruit 220 but was termianted in advance when 134 patients were randomized. This was done due to slow recruitment.

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 21 years 1 month after the study started (first participant enrolled Mar 2000, registered Apr 2021).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
134
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Rectal prolapse is a medical condition where rectum is protruding through the anal opening. The treatment is by surgery that can be performed with an anterior approach through the abdomen or a posterior perineal approach. The condition is more common in elderly patients and much more common in women compared to men. All used surgical techniques have advantages and disadvantages. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate if an abdominal or perineal surgical approach is best to correct a rectal prolapse. The outcome measures will be validated questionnaires on quality of Life (SF-36) and bowel function (modified Wexner incontinence score) as well as recurrence of the rectal prolapse and surgical complications.

The study is a randomized multicenter trial with a 2x2 factorial design. Patients will be randomized between perineal and abdominal approach in a first randomization and the perineal group will then further be randomized into one of two specific operations (delorme or altemeier) and the abdominal group will be further randomized into suture rectopexy or resection rectopexy.

The patients will be followed for 3 months, 1 year and 3 years and a longterm follow up of up to 17 years for recurrence.

Read the detailed description

Background Full thickness rectal prolapse, or procidentia, is a benign but distressing condition. It is defined as the circumferential protrusion of all layers of the rectal wall through the anal sphincters. The annual incidence is 2,5 per 100 000, predominantly in the elderly, and male-to-female ratio is about 1:6.

More than 100 different procedures have been described for surgical treatment of rectal prolapse and consensus has not yet been reached. Traditionally, perineal procedures have been reserved for older patients who are not fit for an abdominal operation. The two most common perineal procedures are Delorme's operation, i.e. mucosectomy and rectal plication, and perineal rectosigmoidectomy, also known as Altemeier's operation, which is a full-thickness excision of the rectum.

The choices between abdominal vs. perineal approach and resection or not were all addressed in the Swedish rectal prolapse trial with possible differences in bowel function, quality of life, recurrence rate and complications as end points.

Study design and randomization This was a multicenter randomized trial with a 2 x 2 factorial design conducted in 13 sites in Sweden. At inclusion, patients signed an informed consent form and the attending surgeon contacted the central trial office at the Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. Randomization was performed with randomly assigned envelopes, stratified for each participating center. Patients were randomized between perineal and abdominal approach (A). The perineal group was further randomized to Delorme's or Altemeier's procedure (B) and the abdominal group to suture rectopexy or resection rectopexy (C). Patients who were considered unsuitable for random allocation to a perineal or an abdominal procedure were included only in (B) or (C).

Preoperative evaluation and procedures All patients were clinically examined and diagnosed with full thickness rectal prolapse. Further examinations with endoscopy, colon transit studies, anorectal manometry, defecography, endoanal ultrasound and pudendal nerve motor latency were optional and were performed as indicated at each surgeon's discretion. Operative procedures were described in the study protocol, see appendix. Abdominal procedures were performed laparoscopically or as open procedure.

In order to validate data all questionnaires were gathered at the central trial hospital and inspected by a second researcher.

The surgical procedures were identified and standardized to a large extent. Both minimal invasive and open surgery were allowed. For example the abdominal procedures were described that mobilization of rectum should be done in the posterior aspect, the lateral ligaments should not be divided, Suture rectopexy should be done with non-absorbable 0.0 sutures, the cul de sac should not be closed.

The sample size was calculated to 220 patients in the first randomization between abdominal and perineal approach. With 220 patients a difference in recurrence of 13% could be identified with 90% power in a significance level of 5%. The plan was to analyze the categorical variables with either Fisher´s exact test or multivariate analysis.

A main study office was situated at Danderyd Hospital and randomization was done from this office at the time when the patient was scheduled for surgery. All hospitals performing surgery for rectal prolapses in Sweden were invited to the study.

02

Conditions studied

  • Rectal Prolapse

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Randomized controlled study
  • Multicenter
  • Prospective
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 134 is above the median of 55 across 34 interventional studies indexed under Rectal Prolapse.

Browse Rectal Prolapse studies →

Lead sponsor

Danderyd Hospital is the lead sponsor of 60 studies on the registry; 13 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  1. Complete rectal prolapse
  2. Surgical correction is considered appropriate
  3. Capable to participate in follow-up visits and answering questionnaires

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

-

Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Factorial assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
134 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Abdominal suture rectopexy

    Patients were randomized first into either an abdominal or a perineal approach. The abdominal group was then further randomized to suture rectopexy or resection rectopexy.

    Procedure: Suture rectopexy

  • Active comparator
    Abdominal resection rectopexy

    Patients were randomized first into either an abdominal or a perineal approach. The abdominal group was then further randomized to suture rectopexy or resection rectopexy.

    Procedure: resection rectopexy

  • Active comparator
    Perineal Delorme

    Patients were randomized first into either an abdominal or a perineal approach. The perineal group was then further randomized to Delorme's operation or Altemeier's operation.

    Procedure: Delorme's operation

  • Active comparator
    Perineal Altemeier

    Patients were randomized first into either an abdominal or a perineal approach. The perineal group was then further randomized to Delorme's operation or Altemeier's operation.

    Procedure: Altemeier's operation

Interventions

  • ProcedureSuture rectopexy
  • Procedureresection rectopexy
  • ProcedureDelorme's operation
  • ProcedureAltemeier's operation
06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Bowel function

    Wexner incontinence score, points, 0-20, higher worse result

    Time frame: 3 months

  2. Bowel function

    Wexner incontinence score, points, 0-20, higher worse result

    Time frame: 1 year

  3. Bowel function

    Wexner incontinence score, points, 0-20, higher worse result

    Time frame: 3 years

  4. Quality of Life

    SF-36, points, 0-100 points, higher better result

    Time frame: 3 months

  5. Quality of Life

    SF-36, points, 0-100 points, higher better result

    Time frame: 1 year

  6. Quality of Life

    SF-36, points, 0-100 points, higher better result

    Time frame: 3 years

Secondary outcomes

  1. Recurrence of rectal prolapse

    recurrence at outpatient visits

    Time frame: 3 months

  2. Recurrence of rectal prolapse

    recurrence at outpatient visits

    Time frame: 1 year

  3. Recurrence of rectal prolapse

    recurrence at outpatient visits

    Time frame: 3 years

  4. Recurrence of rectal prolapse

    Recurrence in Medical records

    Time frame: through study completion, an average of 12 years

Other outcomes

  1. Length of staý

    days

    Time frame: up to 30 days after surgical intervention

  2. Blood loss at operation

    milliliter

    Time frame: during the surgical procedure

  3. perioperative complications

    number classified by Clavien-Dindo

    Time frame: up to 30 days after surgical intervention

07

Study locations

12 sites
  • Sahlgrenska University Hospital
    Gothenburg, Sweden
  • Karlstad Central Hospital
    Karlstad, Sweden
  • Linköping University Hospital
    Linköping, Sweden
  • Sunderbyn Hopsital
    Luleå, Sweden
  • Skåne University Hospital
    Malmö, Sweden
  • Vrinnevi Hospital
    Norrköping, Sweden
  • Danderyd Hospital
    Stockholm, 18150, Sweden
  • karolinska Univeristy Hospital Solna
    Stockholm, Sweden
  • Karolinska University Hospital Huddiinge
    Stockholm, Sweden
  • Sankt göran hospital
    Stockholm, Sweden
  • Uddevalla Hospital
    Uddevalla, Sweden
  • Uppsala University Hospital
    Uppsala, Sweden
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Tou S, Brown SR, Nelson RL. Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 24;2015(11):CD001758. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001758.pub3. PubMed 26599079 ↗
  • Kairaluoma MV, Kellokumpu IH. Epidemiologic aspects of complete rectal prolapse. Scand J Surg. 2005;94(3):207-10. doi: 10.1177/145749690509400306. PubMed 16259169 ↗
  • Madiba TE, Baig MK, Wexner SD. Surgical management of rectal prolapse. Arch Surg. 2005 Jan;140(1):63-73. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.140.1.63. PubMed 15655208 ↗
  • Lundby L, Iversen LH, Buntzen S, Wara P, Hoyer K, Laurberg S. Bowel function after laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a double-blind, randomised single-centre study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Dec;1(4):291-297. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30085-1. Epub 2016 Oct 4. PubMed 28404199 ↗
  • Senapati A, Gray RG, Middleton LJ, Harding J, Hills RK, Armitage NC, Buckley L, Northover JM; PROSPER Collaborative Group. PROSPER: a randomised comparison of surgical treatments for rectal prolapse. Colorectal Dis. 2013 Jul;15(7):858-68. doi: 10.1111/codi.12177. PubMed 23461778 ↗
  • Orwelius L, Nilsson M, Nilsson E, Wenemark M, Walfridsson U, Lundstrom M, Taft C, Palaszewski B, Kristenson M. The Swedish RAND-36 Health Survey - reliability and responsiveness assessed in patient populations using Svensson's method for paired ordinal data. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;2(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0030-0. Epub 2018 Feb 7. PubMed 29757320 ↗
  • Smedberg J, Graf W, Pekkari K, Hjern F. Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial. BJS Open. 2022 Jan 6;6(1):zrab140. doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrab140. PubMed 35045155 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Ran from Mar 2000 to primary completion in Jun 2018, 218 months.

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

Registered
Apr 27, 2021
First posted
May 19, 2021
StartActual
Mar 23, 2000
Primary completionActual
Jun 1, 2018
CompletionActual
Jun 1, 2018
Last update
May 19, 2021
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 May 19, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04893642
Lead sponsor
Danderyd Hospital
Collaborators
Uppsala University Hospital
Responsible party
Klas Pekkari (Head of Colorectal unit, Senior consultant, Md, PhD, Danderyd Hospital) — Principal investigator
First posted
May 19, 2021
Start date
Mar 23, 2000
Primary completion
Jun 1, 2018
Completion
Jun 1, 2018
Last update
May 19, 2021

Study contacts

Fredrik Hjern, Ass Prof, MD
principal investigator · Danderyd Hospital
Klas Pekkari, Md PhD
study director · Danderyd Hospital

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in May 2021. 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