Laparotomic vs. laparoscopic rectopexy in complete rectal prolapse

Department of General and Oncologic Surgery, University of Milan, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Digestive Surgery (Impact Factor: 1.74). 01/1999; 16(5):415-9. DOI: 10.1159/000018758
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to compare the functional and clinical results of laparotomic and laparoscopic rectopexy in 2 homogeneous groups of patients with complete rectal prolapse and fecal incontinence.
Between January 1989 and December 1997, twenty-three patients underwent abdominal rectopexy. Thirteen patients (group A, 12 females and 1 male, mean age 57.3, range 22-76 years), and 10 patients (group B, 10 females, mean age 52.3, range 26-70 years) were submitted respectively to either Wells laparotomic or laparoscopic rectopexy by the same surgical team using the same surgical technique and materials. Before the operation a detailed clinical history was collected, and the patients were studied by inspection and digital examination of the anorectum, proctosigmoidoscopy, pancolonic transit time, dynamic defecography, anorectal manometry and anal electromyography. After the operation all patients underwent perineal physiotherapy, external electric stimulation, and perineal biofeedback. Mean follow-up was 37.1 (range 6-90) months in group A and 25.7 (range 6-49) months in group B. Values were compared by chi(2), Mann-Whitney U, and Wilcoxon tests as appropriate. Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05.
In both groups dyschezia and fecal incontinence improved significantly (p < 0.05) after the operation. The basal pressure of the anal sphincter, squeezing pressure and rectoanal reflex improved without significance, and anal-perineal pain was not significantly reduced. In group B the postoperative hospital stay was lower than in group A, with a reduction in costs.
Laparoscopic Wells rectopexy has the same clinical and functional results as laparotomic rectopexy, but with a shorter postoperative hospital stay and lower costs.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of our study is to compare the results of laparoscopic mesh vs. suture rectopexy. In this retrospective study, 70 patients including both male and female of age ranging between 20 years and 65 years (mean 42.5 yrs) were subjected to laparoscopic rectopexy during the period between March 2007 and June 2012, of which 38 patients underwent laparoscopic mesh rectopexy and 32 patients laparoscopic suture rectopexy. These patients were followed up for a mean period of 12 months assessing first bowel movement, hospital stay, duration of surgery, faecal incontinence, constipation, recurrence and morbidity. Duration of surgery was 100.8 ± 12.4 minutes in laparoscopic suture rectopexy and 120 ± 10.8 min in laparoscopic mesh rectopexy. Postoperatively, the mean time for the first bowel movement was 38 hrs and 40 hrs, respectively, for suture and mesh rectopexy. Mean hospital stay was five (range: 4-7) days. There was no significant postoperative complication except for one port site infection in mesh rectopexy group. Patients who had varying degree of incontinence preoperatively showed improvement after surgery. Eleven out of 18 (61.1%) patients who underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy as compared to nine of 19 (47.3%) patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh rectopexy improved as regards constipation after surgery. There were no significant difference in both groups who underwent surgery except for patients undergoing suture rectopexy had better symptomatic improvement of continence and constipation. Also, cost of mesh used in laparoscopic mesh rectopexy is absent in lap suture rectopexy group. To conclude that laparoscopic suture rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure and have comparable results as regards operative time, morbidity, bowel function, cost and recurrence or even slightly better results than mesh rectopexy.
    Journal of Minimal Access Surgery 03/2014; 10(1):18-22. DOI:10.4103/0972-9941.124456 · 1.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We report the clinical and anal manometric results of elderly patients treated with laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) for full-thickness rectal prolapse. 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. 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 H2O slightly to 16 cm H2O after 2 months, significantly, and still significant after 1 year at 13 cm H2O. 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. 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.
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease 07/2014; 29(10). DOI:10.1007/s00384-014-1960-5 · 2.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Surgical Endoscopy 07/2014; 29(3). DOI:10.1007/s00464-014-3707-3 · 3.31 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from
Mar 4, 2015