Abstract: We included 15 RCTs involving 1007 participants in this third review update. One trial compared abdominal with perineal approaches to surgery, three trials compared fixation methods, three trials looked at the effects of lateral ligament division, one trial compared techniques of rectosigmoidectomy, two trials compared laparoscopic with open surgery, and two trials compared resection with no resection rectopexy. One new trial compared rectopexy versus rectal mobilisation only (no rectopexy), performed with either open or laparoscopic surgery. One new trial compared different techniques used in perineal surgery, and another included three comparisons: abdominal versus perineal surgery, resection versus no resection rectopexy in abdominal surgery and different techniques used in perineal surgery. The heterogeneity of the trial objectives, interventions and outcomes made analysis difficult. Many review objectives were covered by only one or two studies with small numbers of participants. Given these caveats, there is insufficient data to say which of the abdominal and perineal approaches are most effective. There were no detectable differences between the methods used for fixation during rectopexy. Division, rather than preservation, of the lateral ligaments was associated with less recurrent prolapse but more postoperative constipation. Laparoscopic rectopexy was associated with fewer postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay than open rectopexy. Bowel resection during rectopexy was associated with lower rates of constipation. Recurrence of full-thickness prolapse was greater for mobilisation of the rectum only compared with rectopexy. There were no differences in quality of life for patients who underwent the different kinds of prolapse surgery. The lack of high quality evidence on different techniques, together with the small sample size of included trials and their methodological weaknesses, severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It is impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical operations. Longer follow-up with current studies and larger rigorous trials are needed to improve the evidence base and to define the optimum surgical treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

Plain-language summary: Whether surgery is performed through a cut in the abdomen or a cut through the anus (known as a perineal approach), it makes no difference with regard to reappearance of the prolapse or appearance of postoperative complications. When surgeons perform the operation through a small hole in the abdomen (laparoscopic or keyhole surgery) recovery may be faster than for open abdominal surgery. When constipation is one of the main symptoms, bowel resection (removing part of the bowel) during prolapse repair may help. There was no difference in the results when different types of repair were used during the perineal (anal) approach. There was no particular concern about different types of surgery described in this review. Although 15 studies were included in this review, many of them had different comparisons and some had poor methods, limiting the usefulness of the findings. However, longer follow-up of patients in these studies, together with results from ongoing trials, may provide some information in the future.