Advertisement

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 29, Issue 9, pp 1113–1118 | Cite as

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

  • Rao K. MehmoodEmail author
  • Jody Parker
  • L. Bhuvimanian
  • Eyas Qasem
  • Ahmed A. Mohammed
  • Muhammad Zeeshan
  • Kirsten Grugel
  • Paul Carter
  • Shakil Ahmed
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Rectal prolapse Laparoscopic surgery Robotic surgery Rectopexy Functional outcomes Quality of life 

References

  1. 1.
    de Hoog D, Heemskerk J, Nieman F, van Gemert W, Baeten C, Bouvy N (2009) Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a casecontrol study. Int J Color Dis 24:1201–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smart N, Pathak S, Boorman P, Daniels I (2013) Synthetic or biological mesh use in laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy—a systematic review. Color Dis 15(6):650–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D’Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F (2004) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 91:1500–1505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Senapati A, Gray RG, Middleton LJ, Harding J, Hills RK, Armitage NCM, Buckley L, Northover JMA (2013) PROSPER: a randomised comparison of surgical treatments for rectal prolapse. Color Dis 15:858–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maggiori L, Bretagnol F (2013) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective long-term evaluation of functional results and quality of life. Tech Coloproctol 17:431–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ayav A, Bresler L, Hubert J, Brunaud L, Boissel P (2005) Robotic-assisted pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Surg Endosc 19:1200–1203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Munz Y, Moorthy K, Kudchadkar R, Hernandez JD, Martin S, Darzi A, Rockall T (2004) Robotic assisted rectopexy. Am J Surg 187:88–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rose J, Schneider C, Scheidback H, Yildirim C, Bruch HP, Konradt J, Barlehner E, Kockerling F (2002) Laparoscopic treatment of rectal prolapse: experience gained in a prospective multicenter study. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 387:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jonkers HA, Poierrie N, Draaisma WA, Broeders I, Consten ECJ (2013) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and symptomatic rectocele: an analysis of 245 consecutive patients. Color Dis 15:695–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Magruder JT, Efron JE, Wick EC, Gearhart SL (2013) Laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse to reduce surgical-site infections and length of stay. World J Surg 37:1110–1114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wong MT, Meurette G, Rigaud J, Regenet N, Lehur PA (2011) Robotic versus laparoscopic rectopexy for complex rectocele: a prospective comparison of short-term outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 54(3):342–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Klintrup K, Takala H, Vierimaa M, Ohtonen P, Makela J. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a matched-pairs study of operative details and complications. Tech Coloproctol. DOI 10.1007/s10151-013-1042-7Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mantoo S, Podevin J, Regenet N, Rigaud J, Lehur PA, Meuret G (2013) Is robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy superior to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the management of obstructed defaecation? Color Dis 15:e469–e475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kariv Y, Delaney CP, Casillas S, Hammel J, Nocero J, Bast J, Brady K, Fazio VW (2006) Senagore4 AJ. Long-term outcome after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal prolapse: a case–control study. Surg Endosc 20:35–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heemskerk J, Dominique E, de Hoog E, van Gemert W, Baeten C, Greve J, Bouvy N (2007) Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time. Dis Colon Rectum 50:1825–1830PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rao K. Mehmood
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jody Parker
    • 1
  • L. Bhuvimanian
    • 2
  • Eyas Qasem
    • 1
  • Ahmed A. Mohammed
    • 1
  • Muhammad Zeeshan
    • 3
  • Kirsten Grugel
    • 2
  • Paul Carter
    • 2
  • Shakil Ahmed
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryBetsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Ysbyty Glan ClwydRhylUK
  2. 2.Department of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS TrustUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  3. 3.University Hospital of North CumbriaCarlisleUK

Personalised recommendations