Top

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2009 | Original Article

Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study

Authors: Dominique E. N. M. de Hoog, Jeroen Heemskerk, Fred H. M. Nieman, Wim G. van Gemert, Cor G. M. I. Baeten, Nicole D. Bouvy

Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease | Issue 10/2009

Abstract

Purpose

This study was designed to evaluate recurrence and functional outcome of three surgical techniques for rectopexy: open (OR), laparoscopic (LR), and robot-assisted (RR). A case–control study was performed to study recurrence after the three operative techniques used for rectal procidentia. The secondary aim of this study was to examine the differences in functional results between the three techniques.

Materials and methods

All consecutive patients who underwent a rectopexy between January 2000 and September 2006 enrolled in this study. Peri-operative data were collected from patient records and functional outcome was assessed by telephonic questionnaire.

Results

Eighty-two patients (71 females, mean age 56.4 years) underwent a rectopexy for rectal procidentia. Nine patients (11%) had a recurrence; one (2%) after OR, four (27%) after LR, and four (20%) after RR. RR showed significantly higher recurrence rates when controlled for age and follow-up time compared to OR, (p = 0.027), while LR showed near-significant higher rates (p = 0.059). Functional results improved in all three operation types, without a difference between them.

Conclusions

LR and RR are adequate procedures but have a higher risk of recurrence. A RCT is needed assessing the definitive role of (robotic assistance in) laparoscopic surgery in rectopexy.

van Lanschot JJB, Gouma DJ, Schouten WR, Tytgat GNJ, Jansen PLM (1999) Gastro-intestinale chirurgie en gastro-enterologie in onderling verband. Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum, Houtem

Altemeier WA, Giuseffi J, Hoxworth P (1952) Treatment of extensive prolapse of the rectum in aged or debilitated patients. AMA Arch Surg 65(1):72–80PubMed

Chow PK, Ho YH (1996) Abdominal resection rectopexy versus Delorme's procedure for rectal prolapse: comparison of clinical and physiological outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 11(4):201–202PubMedCrossRef

Penninckx F, D'Hoore A, Sohier S, Kerremans R (1997) Abdominal resection rectopexy versus Delorme's procedure for rectal prolapse: a predictable outcome. Int J Colorectal Dis 12(1):49–50PubMedCrossRef

Rose SM (1985) Classic articles in colonic and rectal surgery. Edmond Delorme 1847–1929. Dis Colon Rectum 28(7):544–553CrossRef

D'Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F (2004) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 91(11):1500–1505PubMedCrossRef

Rose J, Schneider C, Scheidbach H, Yildirim C, Bruch HP, Konradt J et al (2002) Laparoscopic treatment of rectal prolapse: experience gained in a prospective multicenter study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 387(3–4):130–137PubMedCrossRef

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(1):35–39PubMedCrossRef

Zittel TT, Manncke K, Haug S, Schafer JF, Kreis ME, Becker HD et al (2000) Functional results after laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse. J Gastrointest Surg 4(6):632–641PubMedCrossRef

10.

Kairaluoma MV, Viljakka MT, Kellokumpu IH (2003) Open vs. laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse: a case-controlled study assessing short-term outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 46(3):353–360PubMedCrossRef

11.

Kariv Y, Delaney CP, Casillas S, Hammel J, Nocero J, Bast J et al (2006) Long-term outcome after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal prolapse: a case-control study. Surg Endosc 20(1):35–42PubMedCrossRef

12.

Purkayastha S, Tekkis P, Athanasiou T, Aziz O, Paraskevas P, Ziprin P et al (2005) A comparison of open vs. laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 48(10):1930–1940PubMedCrossRef

13.

Heemskerk J, van Gemert WG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND (2007) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication: a comparative retrospective study on costs and time consumption. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17(1):1–4PubMedCrossRef

14.

Kessler H, Hohenberger W (2005) Laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 48(9):1800–1801PubMedCrossRef

15.

Heemskerk J, Zandbergen R, Maessen JG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND (2006) Advantages of advanced laparoscopic systems. Surg Endosc 20(5):730–733PubMedCrossRef

16.

Ayav A, Bresler L, Hubert J, Brunaud L, Boissel P (2005) Robotic-assisted pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Surg Endosc 19(9):1200–1203PubMedCrossRef

17.

Munz Y, Moorthy K, Kudchadkar R, Hernandez JD, Martin S, Darzi A et al (2004) Robotic assisted rectopexy. Am J Surg 187(1):88–92PubMedCrossRef

18.

Wells C (1959) New operation for rectal prolapse. Proc R Soc Med 52:602–603PubMed

19.

Heemskerk J, de Hoog DE, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND (2007) Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time. Dis Colon Rectum 50(11):1825–1830PubMedCrossRef

20.

Agachan F, Chen T, Pfeifer J, Reissman P, Wexner SD (1996) A constipation scoring system to simplify evaluation and management of constipated patients. Dis Colon Rectum 39(6):681–685PubMedCrossRef

21.

Browning GG, Parks AG (1983) Postanal repair for neuropathic faecal incontinence: correlation of clinical result and anal canal pressures. Br J Surg 70(2):101–104PubMedCrossRef

22.

Morino M, Beninca G, Giraudo G, Del Genio GM, Rebecchi F, Garrone C (2004) Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 18(12):1742–1746PubMedCrossRef

23.

Morino M, Pellegrino L, Giaccone C, Garrone C, Rebecchi F (2006) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg 93(5):553–558PubMedCrossRef

24.

Hernandez Fernandez C (2006) Finalidad de los cursos de adiestramiento practico. [Purpose of the practical training courses]. Actas Urol Esp 30(5):461–463PubMed

25.

Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR (2002) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 60(1):39–45PubMedCrossRef

Title: Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study
Authors: Dominique E. N. M. de Hoog
Jeroen Heemskerk
Fred H. M. Nieman
Wim G. van Gemert
Cor G. M. I. Baeten
Nicole D. Bouvy
Publication date: 01-10-2009
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease / Issue 10/2009
Print ISSN: 0179-1958
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1262
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0766-3

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2009

Stapled marsupialisation of chronic low rectal anastomotic sinuses

Subcutaneous lateral internal sphincterotomy (SLIS)—a safe technique for treatment of chronic anal fissure

Fast-track vs standard care in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis update

Rectal prolapse in a child with cow’s milk allergy

Acute rectocolitis following endoscopy in health check-up patients—glutaraldehyde colitis or ischemic colitis?

Adenocarcinoma of the small intestine complicating Crohn’s disease