Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
Published in: Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 11/2007

Open Access 01-11-2007 | Original Contributions

Robot-Assisted vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: A Comparative Study on Costs and Time

Authors: Jeroen Heemskerk, M.D., Dominique E. N. M. de Hoog, M.D., Wim G. van Gemert, Ph.D., M.D., Cor G. M. I. Baeten, M.D., Jan Willem M. Greve, M.D., Nicole D. Bouvy, Ph.D., M.D.

Published in: Diseases of the Colon & Rectum | Issue 11/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Laparoscopic rectopexy has become one of the most advocated treatments for full-thickness rectal prolapse, offering good functional results compared with open surgery and resulting in less postoperative pain and faster convalescence. However, laparoscopic rectopexy can be technically demanding. Once having mastered dexterity, with robotic assistance, laparoscopic rectopexy can be performed faster. Moreover, it shortens the learning curve in simple laparoscopic tasks. This may lead to faster and safer laparoscopic surgery. Robot-assisted rectopexy has been proven safe and feasible; however, until now, no study has been performed comparing costs and time consumption in conventional laparoscopic rectopexy vs. robot-assisted rectopexy.

Methods

Our first 14 cases of robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy were reviewed and compared with 19 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic rectopexy in the same period.

Results

Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy did not show more complications. However, the average operating time was 39 minutes longer, and costs were -57.29 (or: $745.09) higher.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure but results in increased time and higher costs than conventional laparoscopy.
Literature
1.
Rose SM. Classic articles in colonic and rectal surgery. Edmond Delorme 1847-929. Dis Colon Rectum 1985;28:544-3.CrossRef
2.
Williams JG, Rothenberger DA, Madoff RD, Goldberg SM. Treatment of rectal prolapse in the elderly by perineal rectosigmoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:830-.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Lasheen AE, Khalifa S, El Askry SM, Elzeftawy AA. Closed rectopexy with transanal resection for complete rectal prolapse in adults. J Gastrointest Surg 2005;9:980-.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Watkins BP, Landercasper J, Belzer GE, et al. Long-term follow-up of the modified Delorme procedure for rectal prolapse. Arch Surg 2003;138:498–502.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Altemeier WA, Giuseffi J, Hoxworth P. Treatment of extensive prolapse of the rectum in aged or debilitated patients. AMA Arch Surg 1952;65:72–80.PubMed
6.
Chow PK, Ho YH. Abdominal resection rectopexy versus Delorme’s procedure for rectal prolapse: comparison of clinical and physiological outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 1996;11:201-CrossRefPubMed
7.
Penninckx F, D’Hoore A, Sohier S, Kerremans R. Abdominal resection rectopexy versus Delorme’s procedure for rectal prolapse: a predictable outcome. Int J Colorectal Dis 1997;12:49–50CrossRefPubMed
8.
Steele SR, Goetz LH, Minami S, Madoff RD, Mellgren AF, Parker SC. Management of recurrent rectal prolapse: surgical approach influences outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 2006;49:440-.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zittel TT, K Manncke K, Haug S, et al. Functional results after laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse. J Gastrointest Surg 2000;4:632-1.CrossRefPubMed
10.
D’Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 2004;91:1500-.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Rose J, Schneider C, Scheidbach H, et al. Laparoscopic treatment of rectal prolapse: experience gained in a prospective multicentre trial. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 002;387:130-.CrossRef
12.
Solomon MJ, Young CJ, Eyers AA, Roberts RA. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 2002;89:35-CrossRefPubMed
13.
Kairaluoma MV, Viljakka MT, Kellokumpu IH. Open vs. laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse: a case-controlled study assessing short-term outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 2003;46:353-0CrossRefPubMed
14.
Purkayastha S, Tekkis P, Athanasiou T, et al. A comparison of open vs. laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48:1930-0.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Kariv Y, Delaney CP, Casillas S, et al. Long-term outcome after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal prolapse: a case-controlled study. Surg Endosc 2006;20:35–42.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Benoist S, Taffinder N, Gould S, Chang A, Darzi A. Functional results two years after laparoscopic rectopexy. Am J Surg 2001;182:168-3CrossRefPubMed
17.
Heah SM, Hartley JE, Hurley J, Duthie GS, Monson JR. Laparoscopic suture rectopexy without resection is effective treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43:638-3.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Lechaux JP, Atienza P, Goasguen N, Lechaux D, Bars I. Prosthetic rectopexy to the pelvic floor and sigmoidectomy for rectal prolapse. Am J Surg 2001;182:465-CrossRefPubMed
19.
Basse L, Billesbolle P, Kehlet H. Early recovery after abdominal rectopexy with multimodal rehabilitation. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45:195-.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Ashari LH, Lumley JW, Stevenson AR, Stitz RW. Laparoscopically-assisted resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse: ten year’s experience. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48:982-.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Scaglia M, Fasth S, Hallgren T, Nordgren S, Oresland T, Hulten L. Abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Influence of surgical technique on functional outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:805-3.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Schiedeck TH, Schwandner O, Scheele J, Farke S, Bruch HP. Rectal prolapse: which surgical option is appropriate? Langenbecks Arch Surg 2005;390:8–14.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR. Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 2002;60:39–45.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Hernandez JD, Bann SD, Munz Y, et al. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the learning curve of a simulated surgical task on the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc 2004;18:372-.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Sarle R, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Peabody J, Menon M. Surgical robotics and laparoscopic drills. J Endourol 2004;18:63-CrossRefPubMed
26.
Heemskerk J, Zandbergen RH, Maessen JG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND. Advantages of advanced laparoscopic systems. Surg Endosc 2006;20:730-.CrossRefPubMed
27.
28.
Ayav A, Bresler L, Hubert J, Brunaud L, Boissel P. Robotic-assisted pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Surg Endosc 2005;19:1200-.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Himpens J, Cadiere GB, Bruyns J, Vertruyen M. Laparoscopic rectopexy according to Wells. Surg Endosc 1999;13:139-1.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Heemskerk J, van Dam R, van Gemert WG, et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. A comparative retrospective study on costs and time consumption. SLEPT 2007;17:1–4
31.
Morino M, Pellegrino L, Giaccone C, Garonne C, Rebecchi F. Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg 2006;93:553-CrossRefPubMed
32.
Morino M, Beninca G, Giraudo G, Del Genio GM, Rebecchi F, Garrone C. Robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2004;18:1742-CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Robot-Assisted vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: A Comparative Study on Costs and Time
Authors
Jeroen Heemskerk, M.D.
Dominique E. N. M. de Hoog, M.D.
Wim G. van Gemert, Ph.D., M.D.
Cor G. M. I. Baeten, M.D.
Jan Willem M. Greve, M.D.
Nicole D. Bouvy, Ph.D., M.D.
Publication date
01-11-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum / Issue 11/2007
Print ISSN: 0012-3706
Electronic ISSN: 1530-0358
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-007-9017-2

Other articles of this Issue 11/2007

Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 11/2007 Go to the issue

Case Reports

Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma in the Rectum: Report of a Case

Original Contributions

Four Percent of Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery may have Synchronous Appendiceal Neoplasia

Original Contributions

Cancer Invasion to Auerbach’s Plexus is an Important Prognostic Factor in Patients with pT3-pT4 Colorectal Cancer

Original Contributions

Multivariate Analysis of Predictive Factors for Early Postoperative Death After Colorectal Surgery in Patients with Colorectal Cancer and Synchronous Unresectable Liver Metastases

Original Contributions

High Frequency of Chromosome 14 Deletion in Early-Onset Colon Cancer

Original Contributions

Early vs. Delayed Elective Laparoscopic-Assisted Colectomy in Sigmoid Diverticulitis: Timing of Surgery in Relation to the Acute Attack