Long-term outcome after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal prolapse: a case-control study

Systematic Review of Quality of Life following Laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery

OBJECTIVE

To compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to Quorum guidelines. Prospective studies comparing the HRQoL of patients after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery were identified. The primary outcome measure was postoperative quality of life; performance status and cosmesis were secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

23 studies were identified that satisfied the inclusion criteria; 18 assessed HRQoL, 4 performance status, and 3 cosmesis. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis due to study heterogeneity. The studies reported outcomes for 2946 patients. The most frequent HRQoL instruments employed were SF-36, EORTC, and GIQLI. 6 studies, using a total of 12 separate measures, evaluated QoL during the first 3 post-operative months: 10 of these measures showed no significant difference, and 2 showed an improved HRQoL with laparoscopy. Twelve further studies evaluated HRQoL up to 5 years post-operatively: 9 showed no difference between the 2 groups, and 3 demonstrated a benefit for laparoscopy. Three of 4 studies assessing performance status on discharge, and all 3 studies assessing cosmesis, reported benefits with the laparoscopic approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence suggests there is no significant difference in HRQoL following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery, although there is a lack of good quality data. There is a trend towards improved quality of life outcomes and performance status with laparoscopy in the early post-operative period. There is a need for further research, particularly assessing quality of life in the early post-operative period.

[Rectal prolapse. Abdominal or local approach]

Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse aims to correct morphology and restore function. Many techniques are available, but none can be considered a gold standard. Abdominal approaches differ with regard to abdominal access, extent of rectal mobilisation, technique of rectal pexy, and concomitant sigmoid resection. Local (perineal/transanal) procedures plicate or resect the rectum. The choice of operative approach is based on the patient's condition and expected outcome of the procedure, e.g. recurrence rate, morbidity, and function. Abdominal operations are favored in fit patients, while local procedures are considered for the elderly and frail. This review compares differences in the most common techniques, focussing on recurrence, morbidity, and functional outcome.

Recurrence and quality of life following perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Surgical outcome and quality of life (QOL) following perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse remain poorly documented.

METHODS

From 1994 to 2004, patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse were treated exclusively with perineal proctectomy independent of age or comorbidities. Subjective patient assessments and recurrences were determined retrospectively from hospital and clinic records. Consenting patients completed the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI).

RESULTS

Perineal proctectomy was performed in 103 consecutive patients with a median age of 75 years (range 30-94). Most patients underwent concurrent levatorplasty (anterior 85.8%, posterior 67.9%). Durable results were obtained in all patients; the recurrence rate was 8.5% over a mean follow-up of 36 months. Preoperatively, 75.5% of patients reported fecal incontinence, and 32.1% had obstructed defecation. Incontinence significantly improved post-proctectomy (41.5%, p < 0.001), as did constipation (10.4%, p < 0.001). GIQLI respondents reported satisfaction following proctectomy with 63% scoring within one standard deviation of healthy controls. Patients with recurrent prolapse reported a lower QOL. Risk factors for recurrence included duration of prolapse, need for posterior levatorplasty, and prior anorectal surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Perineal proctectomy provides significant relief from fecal incontinence and obstructive symptoms caused by rectal prolapse, with an acceptable recurrence rate and low morbidity.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy for rectal prolapse: a prospective cohort study on feasibility and safety

Robotic systems may be particularly supportive for procedures requiring careful pelvic dissection and suturing in the Douglas pouch, as in surgery for rectal prolapse. Studies reporting robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy for rectal prolapse, however, are scarce. This prospective cohort study evaluated the outcome of this technique up to one year after surgery. From January 2005 to June 2006, 15 consecutive patients with a rectal prolapse, either with or without a concomitant rectocele or enterocele, underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy with support of the da Vinci robotic system. A prospective cohort study was performed on operating times, blood loss, intra-operative and post-operative complications, and outcome at a minimum of one year after surgery. Median age at time of operation was 62 years (33-72) and median body mass index 24.9 (20.9-33.9). Median robot set-up time was 10 min (3-15) and median skin-to-skin operating time was 160 min (120-180). No conversions to open surgery were necessary. No in-hospital complications occurred and there was no mortality. Median hospital stay was four days (2-9). During one year follow-up, two patients needed surgical reintervention. One patient was operated for recurrent enterocele and rectocele one week after surgery. In another patient an incisional hernia at the camera port occurred three months after surgery. At one year after surgery, 87% of patients claimed to be satisfied with their postoperative result. Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy proved to be an effective technique with favourable outcomes in most patients in this prospective series. The operating team experienced the support of the robotic system as beneficial, especially during the dissection of the rectovaginal plane and suturing in the Douglas pouch.

Aluminum potassium sulfate and tannic acid injection in the treatment of total rectal prolapse: early outcomes

PURPOSE

No surgical method for repair of total rectal prolapse has been established as optimal. We describe a new technique that uses ALTA (aluminum potassium sulfate and tannic acid) injection as a simple perianal procedure for total rectal prolapse.

METHODS

Fourteen patients with total rectal prolapse were treated with sclerosing therapy by using ALTA injection. Via a perianal approach, 0.5 to 1 ml of ALTA solution was injected along a linear track into the submucosa at 30 to 80 different sites, totaling 20 to 60 ml.

RESULTS

All 14 patients treated with injection sclerotherapy were cured, with no intraoperative or postoperative complications. One patient required a repeat injection after two months to be cured. No exacerbation of constipation has resulted, and no stenosis has been evident on rectal examination. In seven of ten patients presenting with fecal incontinence, this complaint resolved after therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

ALTA sclerotherapy yielded satisfactory results in total rectal prolapse, causing no alteration in neurophysiology of bowel function. Injection sclerotherapy should be recommended as the first procedure for treatment of total rectal prolapse.

Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time

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 euro 557.29 (or: dollars 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.

Surgical management of rectal prolapse

This article reviews the pathogenesis, clinical presentation and surgical management of rectal prolapse. Full-thickness prolapse of the rectum causes significant discomfort because of the sensation of the prolapse itself, the mucus that it secretes, and because it tends to stretch the anal sphincters and cause incontinence. Treatment of rectal prolapse is primarily surgical. Perineal surgical repairs are well tolerated, but are generally associated with higher recurrence rates. Abdominal repairs involve fixing the rectum to the sacrum by using either mesh or sutures, and tend to have the lowest recurrence rates. If significant preoperative constipation is present, a sigmoid resection can be performed at the time of rectopexy. For many patients, diarrhea and incontinence improve after surgery. Laparoscopic repair of rectal prolapse has similar morbidity and recurrence rates to open surgery, with attendant benefits of reduced length of hospital stay, postoperative pain and wound complications.

Laparoscopic rectopexy

Abdominal rectopexy has been advocated as the treatment of choice for complete rectal prolapse. Recurrence rates are low raging from 0-12% and fecal continence has been documented to improve in 3-75% of patients. As most patients are elderly and not always fit enough to undergo abdominal procedure, various perineal approaches have been advocated. Depending on the type and extent of the operation, these procedures have a recurrence of up to 38%. Laparoscopic rectopexy represents the latest development in the evolution of surgical treatment of rectal prolapse. This technique aims to combine the good functional outcome of the open abdominal procedure with the low postoperative morbidity of minimal invasive surgery. We present a laparoscopic rectopexy on 72-year-old lady with a 10-year history of fecal incontinence and mucosal rectal prolapse. Electronic supplementary material is available for this article at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-006-0136-y.

Laparoscopic management of rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse can be a disabling condition for those affected. Treatment has historically been by transanal or abdominal approaches, with transanal approaches tending to have lower morbidity, and abdominal approaches having lower recurrence rates. With the advent of laparoscopy, many of the numerous described abdominal operations have been reported with a minimally invasive approach. Although few randomized data exist, laparoscopic operations appear to provide equal rectal fixation to open surgery, with less morbidity. Coexistent symptoms such as fecal incontinence and constipation must be evaluated before surgery, so that the operation can be tailored to the needs of the individual patient. Patients with severe constipation are often offered a concomitant sigmoid resection, although this does increase the potential for complications. Patients with incontinence, diarrhea, or otherwise normal function can be offered a rectopexy without resection.