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

Validity of task-specific metrics for assessment in perineal proctectomy

BACKGROUND

Perineal proctectomy is a complex procedure that requires advanced skills. Currently, there are no simulators for training in this procedure. As part of our objective of developing a virtual reality simulator, our goal was to develop and validate task-specific metrics for the assessment of performance for this procedure. We conducted a three-phase study to establish task-specific metrics, obtain expert consensus on the appropriateness of the developed metrics, and establish the discriminant validity of the developed metrics.

METHODS

In phase I, we utilized hierarchical task analysis to formulate the metrics. In phase II, a survey involving expert colorectal surgeons determined the significance of the developed metrics. Phase III was aimed at establishing the discriminant validity for novices (PGY1-3) and experts (PGY4-5 and faculty). They performed a perineal proctectomy on a rectal prolapse model. Video recordings were independently assessed by two raters using global ratings and task-specific metrics for the procedure. Total scores for both metrics were computed and analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. A Mann-Whitney U test with Benjamini-Hochberg correction was used to evaluate between-group differences. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was computed to assess the correlation between global and task-specific scores.

RESULTS

In phase II, a total of 23 colorectal surgeons were recruited and consensus was obtained on all the task-specific metrics. In phase III, participants (n = 22) included novices (n = 15) and experts (n = 7). There was a strong positive correlation between the global and task-specific scores (rs = 0.86; P < 0.001). Significant between-group differences were detected for both global (χ2 = 15.38; P < 0.001; df = 2) and task-specific (χ2 = 11.38; P = 0.003; df = 2) scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a biotissue rectal prolapse model, this study documented high IRR and significant discriminant validity evidence in support of video-based assessment using task-specific metrics.

Update on Robotic Rectal Prolapse Treatment

Rectal prolapse is a condition that can cause significant social impairment and negatively affects quality of life. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, with the aim of restoring the anatomy and correcting the associated functional disorders. During recent decades, laparoscopic abdominal procedures have emerged as effective tools for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with the advantages of faster recovery, lower morbidity, and shorter length of stay. Robotic surgery represents the latest evolution in the field of minimally invasive surgery, with the benefits of enhanced dexterity in deep narrow fields such as the pelvis, and may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal prolapse is feasible and safe. It could reduce complication rates and length of hospital stay, as well as shorten the learning curve, when compared to conventional laparoscopy. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required on long-term functional outcomes and recurrence rates.

Rectal-prolapse repair in men is safe, but outcomes are not well understood

Introduction

Rectal prolapse is a condition that occurs infrequently in men and there is little literature guiding treatment in this population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surgical approach and outcomes of rectal-prolapse repair in men.

Methods

A retrospective multicenter review was conducted of consecutive men who underwent rectal-prolapse repair between 2004 and 2014. Surgical approaches and outcomes, including erectile function and fecal continence, were evaluated.

Results

During the study period, 58 men underwent rectal-prolapse repair and the mean age of repair was 52.7 ± 24.1 years. The mean follow-up was 13.2 months (range, 0.5–117 months). The majority of patients underwent endoscopic evaluation (78%), but few patients underwent anal manometry (16%), defecography (9%) or ultrasound (3%). Ten patients (17%) underwent biofeedback/pelvic-floor physical therapy prior to repair. Nineteen patients (33%) underwent a perineal approach (most were perineal proctosigmoidectomy). Thirty-nine patients (67%) underwent repair using an abdominal approach (all were suture rectopexy) and, of these, 77% were completed using a minimally invasive technique. The overall complication rate was 26% including urinary retention (16%), which was more common in patients undergoing the perineal approach (32% vs. 8%, P = 0.028), urinary-tract infection (7%) and wound infection (3%). The overall recurrence rate was 9%, with no difference between abdominal and perineal approaches. Information on sexual function was missing in the majority of patients  both before and after surgery (76% and 78%, respectively).

Conclusion

 Rectal-prolapse repair in men is safe and has a low recurrence rate; however, sexual function was poorly recorded across all institutions. Further studies are needed to evaluate to best approach to and functional outcomes of rectal-prolapse repair in men.

Consensus Statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse, rectal procidentia, "complete" prolapse or "third-degree" prolapse is the full-thickness prolapse of the rectal wall through the anal canal and has a significant impact on quality of life. The incidence of rectal prolapse has been estimated to be approximately 2.5 per 100,000 inhabitants with a clear predominance among elderly women. The aim of this consensus statement was to provide evidence-based data to allow an individualized and appropriate management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse. The strategy used to search for evidence was based on application of electronic sources such as MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Review Library, CINAHL and EMBASE. The recommendations were defined and graded based on the current levels of evidence and in accordance with the criteria adopted by the American College of Gastroenterology's Chronic Constipation Task Force. Five evidence levels were defined. The recommendations were graded A, B, and C.

Laparoscopic Protack™ rectopexy: Early experience of a novel technique for full thickness rectal prolapse in children

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

To review our early experience of laparoscopic ProTack™ rectopexy (LPR) in the management of full thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) in children.

METHODS

Prospective case series of patients undergoing LPR between 2013 and 2017. Full laparoscopic mobilization of the rectum was performed from the sacral promontory to the pelvic floor. 'Wings' of the lateral mesorectal peritoneum left attached to the rectum are then fixed to the sacral promontory using ProTack™. Demographics, associated conditions, previous procedures for FTRP, follow up time, length of stay (LOS), short and long term complications and clinical improvement were assessed.

RESULTS

Seven consecutive patients with FTRP underwent LPR. The mean age was 9 years old (2-17) with a male to female ratio of 6:1. Median LOS was 1 day (1-2 days). Median follow up time was 17 months (10-38 months). All patients had complete resolution of symptoms within the follow up period.

CONCLUSIONS

LPR is a simple, safe and effective procedure showing promising results in children. It negates the risks associated with the use of mesh and has the potential to avoid the higher risk of failure associated with suture rectopexy. It is important to ensure patients receive adequate analgesia and management of postoperative constipation.

Pediatric Rectal Prolapse

Rectal prolapse is a common and self-limiting condition in infancy and early childhood. Most cases respond to conservative management. Patients younger than 4 years with an associated condition have a better prognosis. Patients older than 4 years require surgery more often than younger children. Multiple operative and procedural approaches to rectal prolapse exist with variable recurrence rates and without a clearly superior operation. These include sclerotherapy, Thiersch's anal cerclage, Ekehorn's rectopexy, laparoscopic suture rectopexy, and posterior sagittal rectopexy.

Laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer with rectal prolapse: a case report

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer with rectal prolapse is rare, described by only a few case reports. Recently, laparoscopic surgery has become standard procedure for either rectal cancer or rectal prolapse. However, the use of laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer with rectal prolapse has not been reported.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 63-year-old Japanese woman suffered from rectal prolapse, with a mass and rectal bleeding for 2 years. An examination revealed complete rectal prolapse and the presence of a soft tumor, 7 cm in diameter; the distance from the anal verge to the tumor was 5 cm. Colonoscopy demonstrated a large villous tumor in the lower rectum, which was diagnosed as adenocarcinoma on biopsy. We performed laparoscopic low anterior resection using the prolapsing technique without rectopexy. The distal surgical margin was more than 1.5 cm from the tumor. There were no major perioperative complications. Twelve months after surgery, our patient is doing well with no evidence of recurrence of either the rectal prolapse or the cancer, and she has not suffered from either fecal incontinence or constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic low anterior resection without rectopexy can be an appropriate surgical procedure for rectal cancer with rectal prolapse. The prolapsing technique is useful in selected patients.

Early experience with ambulatory robotic ventral rectopexy

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

Ventral rectopexy can be performed robotically with only limited trauma for the patient, making its performance in an ambulatory setting potentially interesting. The aim of this study is to report our preliminary experience with ambulatory robotic ventral rectopexy in consecutive patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ten consecutive patients underwent robotic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse (n=8) or symptomatic enterocele (n=2) between February 2014 and April 2015. Patients were selected for outpatient treatment based on criteria of patient motivation, favorable social conditions, and satisfactory general condition. Patient characteristics, technical results and cost were reported.

RESULTS

The mean operating time was 94minutes (range: 78-150). The average operating room occupancy time was 254minutes (222-339). There were no operative complications, conversion to laparotomy, or postoperative complication. The average duration of hospital stay was 11 (8-32) hours. Two patients required hospitalization: one for persistent pain and the other for urinary retention. The average maximum pain score recorded on postoperative day 1 was 2/10 on a visual analog scale (range: 0-5/10). Estimated average cost (excluding amortization of the purchase of the robot) was €9088 per procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory management of robotic ventral rectopexy is feasible and safe.

Laparoscopic Rectopexy with Urinary Bladder Xenograft Reinforcement

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Rectal prolapse is often repaired laparoscopically, frequently with the use of reinforcement material. Both synthetic and biologically derived materials reduce recurrence rate compared to primary suture repair. Synthetic mesh introduces potential complications such as mesh erosion, fibrosis, and infection. Urinary bladder matrix (UBM) represents a biologically derived material for reinforcement of rectal prolapse repair with the potential to improve durability without risks of synthetic materials. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness, durability, and functional result of laparoscopic rectopexy using urinary bladder matrix xenograft reinforcement at three years follow up.

METHODS

The 20 cases presented describe rectal prolapse repair by means of laparoscopic rectopexy with presacral UBM reinforcement. Patients were followed up for an average of 3 years and assessed with interviews, physical examination, manometry, and the fecal incontinence severity index (FISI).

RESULTS

Each repair was completed laparoscopically. UBM exhibited favorable handling characteristics when sutured to the sacrum and the lateral rectal walls. One patient underwent laparoscopic drainage of a postoperative abscess; no other complications occurred. In 3 years of follow-up, there have been no full-thickness recurrences, erosions, reoperations, or long-term complications. Two patients exhibited a small degree of mucosal prolapse on follow-up physical examination that did not require surgery. Three-year FISI scores averaged 8 (range, 0-33 of a possible 61), indicating low fecal incontinence symptomatology. Follow-up anorectal manometry was performed in 9 patients, showing mixed results.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons may safely use laparoscopic rectopexy with UBM reinforcement for repair of rectal prolapses. In this series, repairs with UBM grafts have been durable at 3-year follow-up and may be an alternative to synthetic mesh reinforcement of rectal prolapse repairs. Future studies may compare the advantages and cost-effectiveness of reinforcement materials for rectal prolapse repair.

Day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Ventral rectopexy to the promontory has become one of the most strongly advocated surgical treatments for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and deep enterocele. Despite its challenges, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with or without robotic assistance for selected patients can be performed with relatively minimal patient trauma thus creating the potential for same-day discharge. The aim of this prospective case-controlled study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and cost of day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with routine day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy.

METHODS

Between February 28, 2014 and March 3, 2015, 20 consecutive patients underwent day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse or deep enterocele at Michallon University Hospital, Grenoble. Patients were selected for day case surgery on the basis of motivation, favorable social circumstances, and general fitness. One out of every two patients underwent the robotic procedure (n = 10). Demographics, technical results, and costs were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Patients from both groups were comparable in terms of demographics and technical results. Patients operated on with the robot had significantly less pain (p = 0.045). Robotic rectopexy was associated with longer median operative time (94 vs 52.5 min, p < 0.001) and higher costs (9088 vs 3729 euros per procedure, p < 0.001) than laparoscopic rectopexy.

CONCLUSIONS

Day case robotic ventral rectopexy is feasible and safe, but results in longer operative time and higher costs than classical laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse and enterocele.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse and pelvic floor disorders

Pelvic floor disorders are different dysfunctions of gynaecological, urinary or anorectal organs, which can present as incontinence, outlet-obstruction and organ prolapse or as a combination of these symptoms. Pelvic floor disorders affect a substantial amount of people, predominantly women. Transabdominal procedures play a major role in the treatment of these disorders. With the development of new techniques established open procedures are now increasingly performed laparoscopically. Operation techniques consist of various rectopexies with suture, staples or meshes eventually combined with sigmoid resection. The different approaches need to be measured by their operative and functional outcome and their recurrence rates. Although these operations are performed frequently a comparison and evaluation of the different methods is difficult, as most of the used outcome measures in the available studies have not been standardised and data from randomised studies comparing these outcome measures directly are lacking. Therefore evidence based guidelines do not exist. Currently the laparoscopic approach with ventral mesh rectopexy or resection rectopexy is the two most commonly used techniques. Observational and retrospective studies show good functional results, a low rate of complications and a low recurrence rate. As high quality evidence is missing, an individualized approach is recommend for every patient considering age, individual health status and the underlying morphological and functional disorders.

Surgical management of rectal prolapse: The role of robotic surgery

The robotic technique as a safe approach in treatment of rectal prolapse has been widely reported during the last decade. Although there is limited clinical data regarding the benefits of robotic surgery, the safety of robotic surgery in rectal prolapse treatment has been cited by several authors. Also, the robotic approach helps overcome some of the laparoscopic approach challenges with purported advantages including improved visualization, more precise dissection, easier suturing, accurate identification of anatomic structures and fewer conversions to open surgery which can facilitate the conduct of technically challenging cases. These advantages can make robotic surgery ideally suited for minimally invasive ventral rectopexy. Currently, with greater surgeon experience in robotic surgery, the length of the procedure and the recurrence rate with the robotic approach are decreasing and short term outcomes for robotic rectal prolapse seem on par with laparoscopic and open techniques in recent studies. However, the high cost of robotic procedures is still an important issue. The benefits of a robotic approach must be weighed against the higher cost. More research is needed to better understand if the increased cost is justified by an improvement in outcomes. Also, published articles comparing long term outcomes of the robotic approach with other approaches are very limited at this time and further clinical trials are indicated to affirm the role of robotic surgery in the treatment of rectal prolapse.

Laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse is a safe procedure in older patients: A prospective follow-up study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study is to examine the clinical and functional outcome of laparoscopic posterior rectopexy in a consecutive series of adult patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Preoperative data on demography, life-style practices, medication, comorbidity, and previous surgery for rectal prolapse were ascertained from patient charts. Information on operative procedure, and pre- and postoperative complications were recorded. Short- and long-term follow-up were done after a median of 60 days and 2 years after surgery.

RESULTS

Between 1 February 2009 to 1 June 2012, 81 laparoscopic posterior rectopexies were done. Male-to-female ratio was 4:77, median age 73 [57-80.5] years and median ASA Grade 2. Conversion to open surgery was done in 6.2%, the median operating time was 82 min [66 - 102] and median length of hospital stay was 2 days [2-5.7]. Minor and major complications were seen in 5.3% and 14.8%, respectively. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.2%. Constipation or incontinence improved or disappeared in 65.2% and 74.4%, respectively. The cumulated recurrence rate was 11.1% after a median observation time of 2 years.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic posterior rectopexy is a safe and well-tolerated procedure in older patients and can be done with acceptable complications and recurrence rates and short hospital stays. Laparoscopic posterior rectopexy seems to improve bowel function in many patients.

Case-matched series of a non-cross-linked biologic versus non-absorbable mesh in laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is an emerging technique for selected patients with rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome. Data are insufficient to conclude which type of mesh affords the greatest benefit. Our aim was to compare the outcomes of LVR using a non-cross-linked biologic versus a permanent mesh.

METHODS

Twenty nine cases of LVR with permanent mesh were matched based on age and surgical indication with an equal number of patients using biologic mesh. Cases were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. Symptom resolution, patient satisfaction and recurrence of prolapse were measured among those who underwent LVR with either a biologic (Biodesign(®), Cook Medical) or polypropylene mesh.

RESULTS

Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, surgical indication and primary symptoms were not different between the two groups. After a median follow-up of 15.4 months, all patients reported being either completely or partially satisfied. Rates of complete or partial symptom resolution (p = 0.26) or satisfaction (p = 0.27) did not differ between groups. After LVR, similar rates of additional procedures were performed in the biologic (21 %) and the permanent (28 %) mesh group. Among patients with full-thickness prolapse (n = 33), there were five cases (15 %) of recurrence, one in the biologic group and four in the permanent mesh group (p = 0.37). There were no mesh-related complications in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

LVR using a non-cross-linked biologic mesh appears to have comparable rates of symptom improvement and patient satisfaction in the short term. Longer follow-up will be required to determine if prolapse recurrence depends on mesh type.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in an elderly population with external rectal prolapse: clinical and anal manometric results

AIM

We report the clinical and anal manometric results of elderly patients treated with laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

METHOD

From March 2009 to June 2012, patients were consecutively included. A modified laparoscopic Orr-Loygue procedure with posterior mobilisation was used. The patients were evaluated preoperatively, 2 months postoperatively and after 1 year. We registered Wexner incontinence scores and laxative uses by a questionnaire and performed simple anal manometry.

RESULTS

A total of 46 patients underwent operation, all women. The median age was 83 years (range 34-99), median prolapse size was 8 cm (range 2-15), and 30 % had previous prolapse surgery. The median operative time was 135 min (range 90-215), and the median length of stay was 2 days (range 1-14). The 30-day morbidity rate was 15 %, and there were two (4 %) deaths within 30 days. There was a significant reduction in incontinence scores after 2 months and 1 year. The anal resting pressures improved from 10 cm H(2)O slightly to 16 cm H(2)O after 2 months, significantly, and still significant after 1 year at 13 cm H(2)O. There were no changes in the use of laxatives. The median follow-up time was 1.5 years (range 0.5-3), and there were two prolapse recurrences (4 %) in this period.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with posterior mobilisation seems to be effective and relatively well tolerated, although not without mortality in elderly debilitated patients. It improves incontinence. With increased life-year expectance, these patients may benefit from a lower risk of recurrence compared with perineal procedures.

Short-term outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Is robotic superior?

PURPOSE

Short term morbidity, functional outcome, recurrence and quality of life outcomes after robotic assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) were compared.

METHODS

This study includes 51 consecutive patients having operations for external rectal prolapse (ERP) in a tertiary centre between October 2009 and December 2012. Of these, 17 patients had RVMR and 34 underwent LVMR. The groups were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades. The same operative technique and mesh was used and follow up was 12 months. Data was collected on patient demographics, surgery duration, blood loss, duration of hospital stay and operative complications. Functional outcomes were measured using the faecal incontinence severity index (FISI) and Wexner faecal incontinence scoring. Quality of life was scored using SF36 questionnaires pre and postoperatively.

RESULTS

All patients were female except three (median 59, range 25-89). There was one laparoscopic converted to open procedure. RVMR procedures were longer in duration (p = 0.013) but with no difference in blood loss between the groups. The average duration of stay was 2 days in both groups. There were six minor postoperative complications in LVMR procedures and none in the RVMR group. Pre and postoperative Wexner and FISI scoring were significantly lower in the RVMR group (p = 0.042 and p = 0.024, respectively). SF-36 questionnaires showed better scoring in physical and emotional component in RVMR group (p = 0.015). There was no recurrence in either group during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LVMR and RVMR are similar in terms of safety and efficacy. Although not randomized, this data may suggest a better functional outcome and quality of life in patients having RVMR for ERP.

Robot-assisted or conventional laparoscoic rectopexy for rectal prolapse? Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The use of robotic technology has proved to be safe and effective, arising as a helpful alternative to standard laparoscopy in a variety of surgical procedures. However the role of robotic assistance in laparoscopic rectopexy is still not demonstrated.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out performing an unrestricted search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to 30th June 2014. Reference lists of retrieved articles and review articles were manually searched for other relevant studies. We meta-analyzed the data currently available regarding the incidence of recurrence rate of rectal prolapse, conversion rate, operative time, intra-operative blood loss, post-operative complications, re-operation rate and hospital stay in robot-assisted rectopexy (RC) compared to conventional laparoscopic rectopexy (LR).

RESULTS

Six studies were included resulting in 340 patients. The meta-analysis showed that the RR does not influence the recurrence rate of rectal prolapse, the conversion rate and the re-operation rate, whereas it decreases the intra-operative blood loss, the post-operative complications and the hospital stay. Yet, the RR resulted to be longer than the LR. Post-operative ano-rectal and the sexual functionality and procedural costs could not meta-analyzed because the data from included studies about these issues were heterogeneous and incomplete.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis showed that the RR may ensure limited improvements in post-operative outcomes if compared to the LR. However, RCTs are needed to compare RR to LR in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes, specially investigating the functional outcomes that may confirm the cost-effectiveness of the robotic assisted rectopexy.

Surgical treatments for rectal prolapse: how does a perineal approach compare in the laparoscopic era?

BACKGROUND

Patients with rectal prolapse often have significant comorbidities that lead surgeons to select a perineal resection for treatment despite a reported higher recurrence rate over abdominal approaches. There is a lack of data to support this practice in the laparoscopic era. The objective of this study was to evaluate if risk-adjusted morbidity of perineal surgery for rectal prolapse is actually lower than laparoscopic surgery.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database as performed for patients undergoing surgical treatment of rectal prolapse between 2005 and 2011. Outcomes were analyzed according to procedure-type: laparoscopic rectopexy (LR), laparoscopic resection/rectopexy (LRR), open rectopexy (OR), open resection/rectopexy (ORR), and perineal resection (PR). A multivariate logistic regression was used to compare risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality between each procedure. Main outcome measures were 30-day morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Among 3,254 cases sampled, a laparoscopic approach was used in 22 %, an open abdominal approach in 30 %, and PR in 48 %. Patients undergoing PR were older (76) and had a higher ASA (3) compared to laparoscopic (58, 2) and open abdominal procedures (58, 2). Risk-adjusted mortality could not be assessed due to a low overall incidence of mortality (0.01 %). Overall morbidity was 9.3 %. ORR was associated with a higher risk-adjusted morbidity compared to PR (OR: 1.89 CI (1.19-2.99), p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in risk-adjusted morbidity found between LR and LRR compared to PR (OR 0.44 CI (0.19-1.03), p = 0.18; OR 1.55 CI (0.86-2.77), p = 0.18). Laparoscopic cases averaged 27 min longer than open cases (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic rectal prolapse surgery has comparable morbidity and mortality to perineal surgery. A randomized trial is indicated to validate these findings and to assess recurrence rates and functional outcomes.

Rectal prolapse and intussusception

Rectal prolapse continues to be problematic for both patients and surgeons alike, in part because of increased recurrence rates despite several well-described operations. Patients should be aware that although the prolapse will resolve with operative therapy, functional results may continue to be problematic. This article describes the recommended evaluation, role of adjunctive testing, and outcomes associated with both perineal and abdominal approaches.

Laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse to reduce surgical-site infections and length of stay

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse is commonly seen in patients with significant co-morbidities. Multiple approaches have been described, including the use of laparoscopy. The purpose of this study was to determine if laparoscopic approaches for repair of rectal prolapse are associated with less short-term morbidity than open approaches.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients who underwent laparoscopic or open rectopexy (R) or sigmoid resection and rectopexy (SR + R) between 2005 and 2008. Co-morbidities analyzed included diabetes, body mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, cardiac (history of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, previous percutaneous cardiac intervention or surgery), and neurologic disorder (history of transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular accident). Postoperative complications analyzed included surgical-site infections (SSIs), pneumonia, reintubation, pulmonary embolus, stroke, myocardial infarction, and sepsis. The χ (2) or t test/ANOVA were used to assess significance for categoric and continuous variables, respectively. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine risk factors for morbidity after rectal prolapse repair.

RESULTS

Altogether, 685 patients underwent surgical treatment of rectal prolapse. Most patients underwent open SR + R (open: 247 SR + R, 193 R; laparoscopic: 161 SR + R, 84 R). All patients had similar co-morbidity profiles. Patients undergoing laparoscopic R were significantly older (mean age 61.4 years) than those in the other three groups (p = 0.04). Operating time ranged from 128 min (open R) to 185 min (laparoscopic SR + R; p < 0.001). Open SR + R and open R were associated with significantly more morbidity than laparoscopic SR + R and R [odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.83, p = 0.01]. Comparing all four procedures, there was a trend to decreased overall morbidity with laparoscopic R, but without statistical significance (OR 0.31, 95 % CI 0.07-1.40, p = 0.13). Length of hospital stay (LOS) and SSI rates were significantly lower with laparoscopic R than with the other three procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who undergo laparoscopic rectopexy have a shorter LOS and lower SSI rate than patients who undergo other abdominal procedures for repair of rectal prolapse. Further study is necessary to determine the long-term outcomes from laparoscopic rectopexy, but in high-risk patients the laparoscopic approach can decrease perioperative risk.

Changing approaches to rectal prolapse repair in the elderly

Aim: The abdominal approach to rectal prolapse is associated with lower rates of recurrence but a higher chance of complications and has been traditionally reserved for younger patients. However, longer life expectancy and wider use of laparoscopic techniques necessitates another look at the abdominal approach in older patients.

Methods: This was a retrospective review of data from patients undergoing abdominal repair of rectal prolapse between 2005 and 2011.

Results: Forty-six abdominal repairs (laparoscopic or open suture rectopexy, sigmoidectomy and rectopexy and low anterior resection) were performed during the study period. Twenty-nine repairs (63%) were performed in patients under the age of 70 (average age 51) and 17 (37%) in patients older than 70 (average age 76; range 71–89). Most of the cases performed during the initial 3 years of the study were via laparotomy. However, in the last 4 years, the laparoscopic approach was used in 83% of younger patients and 69% of older patients. Average length of stay was 2.6 days for younger and 3.8 days for older patients. Both groups had similar rates of re-admission: 20% vs 23%. The rate of wound infection was higher in the younger patients (5% vs nil). However, rates of urinary tract infection, two instances (10%) vs four (30%), urinary retention, one instance (5%) vs two (15.4%), ileus, one instance (5%) vs two (15.4%) were higher in the older group.

Conclusion: Wider use of laparoscopy has precipitated a change in the approach to rectal prolapse in older patients. Although associated with a slightly higher rate of post-operative complications, the abdominal approach to rectal prolapse is feasible, safe and effective in patients older than 70 years.

Early experience with robotic rectopexy

BACKGROUND

The introduction of robotics in colorectal surgery has been gaining increasing acceptance. However, experience remains still limited for pelvic floor disorders. We report herein our first cases of fully robotic rectopexy and promontofixation for rectal prolapse.

METHODS

From October 2011 to June 2012, five female patients underwent a robotic rectopexy at our institution. The patients were selected according to their primary pathology and their medical history for this preliminary experience. Four of them presented a rectal prolapse associated or not with a vaginal prolapse and the last patient presented a recurrent rectal prolapse 5 years after a laparoscopic repair. The study was approved by our local ethics committee. The robot da Vinci Si (Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale, CA) was used with a 4-port setting in all cases.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 170 minutes (range: 120-270). There was no conversion. The blood loss was minimal. One patient presented a retrorectal hematoma, treated conservatively with success. There was no other complication. The mean hospital stay was 3.6 days (range: 2-7). At 2 months, there was neither recurrence nor readmission. In comparison with the laparoscopic approach, there were no statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic rectopexy and promontofixation are feasible and safe. The outcomes are encouraging, but functional results and long-term outcomes are required to evaluate the exact role of robotics for rectal prolapse.

Comparative study between Delorme operation with or without postanal repair and levateroplasty in treatment of complete rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse is a distressing and socially disabling condition. controversy exists regarding the preferred surgical technique for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse.

OBJECTIVE

We compared Delorme operation alone or with postanal repair and levatroplasty in treating complete rectal prolapse.

METHODS

Consecutive patients treated for rectal prolapse at our colorectal unit were evaluated for inclusion. Participants were randomly allocated to receive Delorme operation only (GI), or Delorme operation with postanal repair and levatorplasty (GII).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was recurrence rate; secondary outcomes included improvement of constipation, incontinence, operative time, anal manometery and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Eighty-two consecutive patients with rectal prolapse were randomized. There was a significant difference between the two groups with longer operative time in group II. Recurrence rate after one year was (14.28% in GI, and 2.43% in GII, respectively (P = 0.043). Constipation improved in group I & II but there was a significant difference in constipation scores postoperatively between the two groups. There was improvement in continence mechanism in both groups postoperatively but being higher in group II and this produce a significant statistical difference (0.004). Mean satisfaction score was significantly higher in group II than group I. Both groups succeed to produce a significant change in resting and squeeze pressure before & after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Delorme operation seems to be an effective procedure for treating complete rectal prolapse especially if combined with postanal repair and levatorplasty.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01656369.

Obstructive defecation syndrome: 19 years of experience with laparoscopic resection rectopexy

BACKGROUND

In obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) combinations of morphologic alterations of the pelvic floor and the colorectum are nearly always evident. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) aims at restoring physiological function. We present the results of 19 years of experience with this procedure in patients with ODS.

METHODS

Between 1993 and 2012, 264 patients underwent LRR for ODS at our department. Perioperative and follow-up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

The female/male ratio was 25.4:1, mean age was 61.3 years (±14.3 years), and mean body mass index (BMI) was 25.2 kg/m(2) (±4.2 kg/m(2)). The pathological conditions most frequently found in combination were a sigmoidocele plus a rectocele (n = 79) and a sigmoidocele plus a rectal prolapse or intussusception (n = 69). The conversion rate was 2.3 % (n = 6). The mortality rate was 0.75 % (n = 2), the rate of complications requiring surgical re-intervention was 4.3 % (n = 11), and the rate of minor complications was 19.8 % (n = 51). Follow-up data were available for 161 patients with a mean follow-up of 58.2 months (±47.1 months). Long-term results showed that 79.5 % of patients (n = 128) reported at least an improvement of symptoms. In cases of a sigmoidocele (n = 63 available for follow-up) or a rectal prolapse II°/III° (n = 72 available for follow-up), the improvement rates were 79.4 % (n = 50) and 81.9 % (n = 59), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LRR is a safe and effective procedure. Our perioperative results and long-term functional outcome strengthen the evidence regarding benefits of LRR in patients with an outlet obstruction. However, careful patient selection is essential.

DeloRes trial: study protocol for a randomized trial comparing two standardized surgical approaches in rectal prolapse - Delorme's procedure versus resection rectopexy

Background

More than 100 surgical approaches to treat rectal prolapse have been described. These can be done through the perineum or transabdominally. Delorme’s procedure is the most frequently used perineal, resection rectopexy the most commonly used abdominal procedure. Recurrences seem more common after perineal compared to abdominal techniques, but the latter may carry a higher risk of peri- and postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Methods/Design

DeloRes is a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded multicenter trial with two parallel groups. Patients with a full-thickness rectal prolapse (third degree prolapse), considered eligible for both operative methods are included. The primary outcome is time to recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse during the 24 months following primary surgery. Secondary endpoints are time to and incidence of recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse during the 5-year follow-up, duration of surgery, morbidity, hospital stay, quality of life, constipation, and fecal incontinence. A meta-analysis was done on the basis of the available data on recurrence rates from 17 publications comprising 1,140 patients. Based on the results of a meta-analysis it is assumed that the recurrence rate after 2 years is 20% for Delorme’s procedure and 5% for resection rectopexy. Considering a rate of lost to follow-up without recurrence of 30% a total of 130 patients (2 x 65 patients) was calculated as an adequate sample size to assure a power of 80% for the confirmatory analysis.

Discussion

The DeloRes Trial will clarify which procedure results in a smaller recurrence rate but also give information on how morbidity and functional results compare.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trial Number DRKS00000482

Rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse is a condition that usually requires surgical intervention to correct. Abdominal and perineal approaches are well described in the literature. Abdominal approaches have traditionally been reserved for young healthy patients, but this has been challenged by perineal approaches with excellent outcomes. Laparoscopic techniques have been shown to be effective and equivalent to traditional laparotomy techniques.

Outcome analysis of elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse

PURPOSE

For treatment of rectal prolapse, abdominal approaches are generally offered to younger patients, whereas perineal, less invasive procedures are considered more beneficial in the elderly. The aim of this study was to analyze whether laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) is suitable for older patients.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Patients who received LRR for rectal prolapse were selected from a prospective laparoscopic colorectal surgery database. Perioperative and long-term outcome were compared between patients <75 years old (group A) and ≥75 years old (group B).

RESULTS

Of 154 patients, 111 were in group A and 43 in group B. There was one conversion that occurred in group B. Overall mortality rate was 1.3% (n = 2). Both patients were in group B (group B, 4.7%; p = 0.079). Differences in major and minor complications between the groups were not significant. Rates of improvement for incontinence were 62.7% (group A) and 66.7% (group B; p = 0.716); for constipation, the rates were 78.9% (group A) and 73.3% (group B; p = 0.832). All recurrences occurred in group A (n = 10; overall, 10.3%; group A, 13%). After exclusion of patients who had previously received perineal prolapse surgery, recurrence rate was 3.3% overall (group A, 4.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the benefits of LRR for rectal prolapse in elderly patients. Age per se is not a contraindication for LRR. Elderly patients encounter complications slightly more frequently (although not statistically significant) than younger patients. Therefore, a very careful patient selection in the elderly is of paramount importance. However, the long-term outcome does not seem to differ between younger and elderly patients.

Quality of life after laparoscopic resection rectopexy

PURPOSE

This study evaluated continence, constipation, and quality of life (QoL) after laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Results were compared with existing data after perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PRS).

METHODS

From May 2003 to February 2008, consecutive patients suffering from full-thickness rectal prolapse undergoing LRR were retrospectively studied. A standardized questionnaire including the Cleveland Clinic Constipation and Incontinence Scores (CCCS and CCIS) as well as general and constipation-related QoL scores (EQ-5D and PAC-QOL) was administered. Results were compared with those after PRS. For statistic analysis, the Wilcoxon test (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS) and two-sample Student's t test (CCCS, CCIS, and PAC-QOL) were used for LRR, for the comparison of both procedures Mann-Whitney test (EQ-5D) and two-sample Student's t test (EQ-VAS, CCCS, CCIS, and PAC-QOL).

RESULTS

Eighteen patients, 15 female, aged 58.1 (±20.2) years underwent LRR. Eleven patients completed follow-up. Postoperatively, neither functional outcome nor QoL improved. Two recurrences occurred, morbidity was n = 2, and mortality n = 1. In comparison, patients after PRS benefit from improved constipation, general QoL measures, status of health, and all dimensions of constipation-related QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients after LRR do not benefit from improved general nor constipation-related QoL nor improved functional results compared to PRS.

Focus on abdominal rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: meta-analysis of literature

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic rectopexy to treat full-thickness rectal prolapse has proven short-term benefits, but there are few long-term follow-up and functional outcome data available. Using meta-analysis techniques, this study was designed to evaluate long-term results of open and laparoscopic abdominal procedures to treat full-thickness rectal prolapse in adults.

METHODS

A literature review was performed using the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database. All articles on abdominal rectopexy patients with a follow-up longer than 16 months were considered. The primary end point was recurrence of rectal prolapse, and the secondary end points were improvement in incontinence and constipation. A random effect model was used to aggregate the studies reporting these outcomes, and heterogeneity was assessed.

RESULTS

Eight comparative studies, consisting of a total of 467 patients (275 open and 192 laparoscopic), were included. Analysis of the data suggested that there is no significant difference in recurrence, incontinence and constipation improvement between laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy and open abdominal rectopexy. Considering non-comparative trials, the event rate for recurrence was similar in open and laparoscopic suture rectopexy studies and in open and laparoscopic mesh rectopexy trials. Improvement in constipation after the intervention was not statistically significant except for open mesh repair; postoperative improvement in incontinence was statistically significant after laparoscopic procedures and open mesh rectopexy.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure, which may compare equally with the open technique with regard to recurrence, incontinence and constipation. However, large-scale randomized trials, with comparative, strong methodology, are still needed to identify outcome measures accurately.

How to do it--laparoscopic resection rectopexy

INTRODUCTION

A variety of surgical strategies have been suggested and many surgical techniques, both abdominal and perineal, have been introduced for treatment of rectal prolapse. All these techniques and approaches are based on the attempt to restore the normal anatomy and physiologic function.

METHODS

In 1992, Berman et al. published the first laparoscopically performed rectopexy. Meanwhile, many different minimally invasive procedures have been described. Throughout the past century, more than 100 different surgical techniques have been introduced to treat patients with rectal prolapse. Unfortunately, there is still lack of one generally accepted standard technique for the surgical treatment of rectal prolapse.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Our current data strongly supports laparoscopic resection rectopexy to be a safe, fast, and very effective procedure to improve function in patients with rectal prolapse. More evaluations of long-term outcome are needed that focus on each particular laparoscopic procedure to adequately compare different techniques. The indication to perform a laparoscopic resection rectopexy in patients with a previous perineal procedure and a recurrent prolapse should be stated critically because these patients seem to have a high risk to develop yet another recurrence.

Outcome of laparoscopic rectopexy versus perineal rectosigmoidectomy for full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

The balance between abdominal and perineal approaches for rectal prolapse is always the higher morbidity but better outcome in the former setting. Therefore, perineal approaches have been preferred for the treatment of full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) in elderly patients. However, laparoscopic rectopexy with or without resection also may be used for elderly patients and may confer the same benefits.

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of laparoscopic rectopexy compared with perineal rectosigmoidectomy for FTRP in elderly patients.

METHODS

Between July 2000 and June 2009, eight consecutive patients (8 women; mean age, 71 (range, 65-77) years) with FTRP underwent laparoscopic rectopexy (LAP group). During the same period, 143 patients underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PRS group). A total of 123 patients were selected who underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy (117 women; mean age, 80.7 (range, 66-98) years).

RESULTS

Three patients (37.5%) in the LAP group and 29 patients (23.6%) in the PRS group had undergone previous operations for rectal prolapse. The mean follow-up periods were 6.9 months and 12.8 months, respectively. In the LAP group, operative time was longer (166.5 vs. 73.5 minutes; p > 0.05) and bleeding loss was more (101.7 vs. 31.6; p < 0.05), whereas the length of hospitalization was same between the two groups (5.4 vs. 5.3 days; p > 0.05). Postoperative complications included an incisional hernia in the LAP group (12.5%) and urinary retention (4.8%), anastomotic disruption (2.4%), urinary tract infection (1.6%), and atelectasis (1.6%) in the PRS group (13.8%). Recurrences were 1 (12.5%) in the LAP group and 14 (11.4%) in the PRS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure in elderly patients with FTRP but results in increased operative time.

Common transabdominal surgical options for rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse is a troublesome anorectal disorder. Surgical procedures for rectal prolapse contain transabdominal and transperineal approaches. There are hundreds of transabdominal procedures currently available for treatment of the disease, such as Ripstein procedure, Wells procedure, Orr procedure, Nigro procedure, anterior resection, Frykman-Goldberg procedure, and Roscoe Graham procedure. Laparoscopic repair represents the latest advance in surgical treatment of rectal prolapse. As each procedure has its strength and weakness, personalized selection of appropriate procedure can greatly improve surgical outcome. Individualized diagnosis and treatment plan may represent a new direction for transabdominal surgical treatment of rectal prolapse.

[Laparoscopic treatment of rectal prolapse]

INTRODUCTION

Rectal prolapse is an uncommon disease mainly seen in patients of advanced age. It is treated surgically, although there is still significant controversy as regards the most appropriate technique. In the last few years the laparoscopic route has been shown to be feasible and has the advantage of being a minimally invasive technique.

OBJECTIVE

To present the preliminary results of a series of patients with rectal prolapse, the majority of whom were treated by performing a laparoscopic posterior rectopexy.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Between February 1998 and February 2008, 17 patients diagnosed with total rectal prolapse were operated on. In 15 cases, a Wells type posterior rectopexy was performed and in the other two a sigmoidectomy was done. The pre-surgical characteristics, as well as the immediate post-surgical results and the long-term follow up results were analysed.

RESULTS

The mean age of the series was 63 (21-87) years, with a mean operation time of 186 (105-240) min and a conversion index of 6.6%. There was no post-surgical morbidity and mortality and the mean hospital stay was 5.2 (3-8) days. The mean follow-up was 39 (6-96) months with no relapses seen. One patient had an intralumen migration of the mesh which was expulsed via the rectum, two years after the surgery. One patient died during follow-up due to his underlying severe cardio-respiratory disease. The prolapse re-occurred in one patient after a sigmoidectomy. Eight patients (53%) previously had constipation and in six cases (40%), incontinence. In the post-surgical reviews, constipation persisted in three patients (20%) and a it was seen de novo in one case (6.6%). The incontinence was resolved in four cases (26%) and persisting in two patients (13%).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectopexy is a good technical option with a low morbidity-mortality and a reduced hospital stay, as well as good results in the long-term.

Abdominal approaches for rectal prolapse

The management of full-thickness rectal prolapse involves surgical intervention in the majority of cases. Many procedures have been described employing both perineal and abdominal approaches. Abdominal procedures result in more durable repair of the prolapse; however, the procedures require general anesthesia and are reserved for younger healthier patients. Laparoscopy has been utilized in the treatment of rectal prolapse since its introduction for colorectal procedures; recent studies have found equivalent long-term results and short-term outcomes.

Multimedia manuscript. Laparoscopic rectopexy with posterior mesh fixation

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this multimedia article is to present a technique of laparoscopic rectopexy with fixation of the rectum to the sacrum using a short strip of mesh.

METHODS

The technique is presented in a video clip.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic rectopexy procedure is usually performed using four ports. First, the upper rectum is mobilized on its right side, and dissection posterior to the rectum is performed all the way down to the level of the pelvic floor. Anterior mobilization is performed next, and the rectovaginal septum is dissected all the way down to the level of the pelvic floor. A short strip of mesh, approximately 5 cm × 2 cm in diameter, is introduced through the right lower quadrant port. The mesh is placed vertically on the sacrum from the level of the sacral promontory downward, and secured to the sacrum using endo-tackers, which should be applied below the promontory and adjacent to the midline to avoid injury to the hypogastric nerves. The mesorectum is then secured to the mesh in four points using absorbable sutures. Applying adequate sutures directly to the presacral fascia using the relatively small needles that can go through the ports may be a difficult task. Suturing to the mesh, however, is very easy, and in our opinion may be considered the main advantage of the posterior mesh technique. Ten female patients (age range, 26-84 years) underwent rectopexy using this technique. At a mean follow-up of 2.2 years, two had recurrent prolapse-one of which, the only patient in whom absorbable tackers were used-had in-house recurrence and refixation. Complications included one patient with mild pelvic pain, which spontaneously resolved in 3 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The presented technique may ease fixation of the rectum to the sacrum and potentially improve results.

Open vs laparoscopic repair of full-thickness rectal prolapse: a re-meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A re-meta-analysis of available data within the published literature comparing laparoscopic rectopexy (LR) with open repair (OR).

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed and the Cochrane databases from January 1990 to October 2008. We searched the following MESH terms: 'laparoscopy', 'prolapse' and 'rectal prolapse'. We used the following text words: 'rectopexy', 'haemorrhoids', 'minimally invasive' and 'keyhole surgery'. The bibliography of selected trials and a Cochrane review was scrutinized and relevant references obtained. Selected trials were analysed to conduct a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twelve comparative studies on 688 patients qualified for the review. There were 330 patients in LR group and 358 in the OR group. LR takes longer to perform compared with OR. This difference was statistically significant [random effects model: standardized mean difference (SMD) 1.63, 95% CI (1.14-2.12), z = 6.56, P < 0.001]. There was a significant reduction in hospital stay between LR vs OR [random effects model: SMD -1.75, 95% CI (-2.45 to -1.05), z = -4.90, P < 0.001]. There was no statistical difference relating to morbidity, constipation, incontinence or mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and effective modality and is comparable to OR, however, there is still a paucity of randomized controlled trials within the literature regarding this subject. Until these trials are conducted, we would advise caution in deriving absolute conclusions.

Laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a single-center study during 16 years

BACKGROUND

Many different techniques to treat rectal prolapse have been introduced. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy has been shown to entail benefits regarding both perioperative results and short-term outcome, whereas data for long-term outcome are scarce.

METHODS

Between 1993 and 2008, all laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse II° or III° were selected from a prospective laparoscopic colorectal surgery database. We analyzed demographic, perioperative, and follow-up results. We defined two periods (1993-2000 and 2001-2008) for comparison of data. Long-term follow-up was obtained by sending questionnaires to all patients. Evaluation included constipation, incontinence, and recurrence of prolapse.

RESULTS

Between January 1993 and November 2008, we performed 152 laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse. Median age was 64.1 years (± 14.6). Conversion rate was 0.7% (1), mean operation time was 204 (± 65.3) min, and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first (P < 0.0001). Mortality was 0.7% (n = 1). Complication rates were 4% (n = 6; major) and 19.2% (n = 29; minor), respectively. Mean length of hospital stay was 11.3 (± 6.4) days and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first period (P < 0.0001). Mean time of follow-up was 47.7 (± 41.6) months. Improvement or complete elimination of constipation was stated by 81.3% (65), and improvement or elimination of incontinence was stated by 67.3% (72). Overall recurrence rate was 11.1% (n = 10) with a rate of 5.6% (n = 5) for a 5-year period. Of those patients with previous perineal surgery for rectal prolapse, 53.8% (7/13) experienced recurrent prolapse after laparoscopic resection rectopexy in contrast to 3.9% (3/77) of patients without previous perineal prolapse surgery (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the benefits of laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse regarding both perioperative results and long-term functional outcome. Preceding perineal or open abdominal operations have an impact on recurrence after laparoscopic resection rectopexy.

Laparoscopy for benign colorectal diseases

The applicability of laparoscopy to many complex intraabdominal colorectal procedures continues to expand, and has been shown to be feasible and safe in experienced hands. Data are available on the elderly, rectal prolapse, diverticulitis, Hartman's takedown, small bowel obstruction, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis. Clinically relevant advantages have been clearly demonstrated in selected patient populations. Laparoscopic surgery for benign colorectal disease should be considered in patients suitable for this approach to an abdominal operation.

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

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.