Advertisement

Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients

  • A. D’HooreEmail author
  • F. Penninckx
Technique

Abstract

The authors propose a new laparoscopic technique for correction of rectal prolapse. The unique feature of this technique is that it avoids any posterolateral dissection of the rectum. The mesh is sutured to the anterior aspect of the rectum to inhibit intussusception. The technique was applied in 109 consecutive patients to correct total rectal prolapse. Conversion was needed for four patients. No postoperative mortality or major morbidity occurred. Minor morbidity was noted for 7% of the patients, and a recurrence rate of 3.66% was observed. Because this technique limited the dissection and the subsequent risk of autonomic nerve damage, a cure comparable with that resulting from classical mesh rectopexy can be anticipated.

Keywords

Laparoscopy Nerve sparing Rectal prolapse Rectopexy 

References

  1. 1.
    Brazzelli M, Bachoo P, Grant A (2004) Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults (Cochrane Review). From the Cochrane Library, Issue 2, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Broden B, Snellman B (1968) Procidentia of the rectum studied with cineradiography: a contribution to the discussion of causative mechanism. Dis Colon Rectum 11: 330–347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown AJ, Anderson JH, McKee RF, Finlay IG (2004) Strategy for selection of type of operation for rectal prolapse based on clinical criteria. Dis Colon Rectum 47: 103–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Classic articles in colonic and rectal surgery. Roscoe Reid Graham 1890–1948 (1985) The operative repair of massive rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 28: 374–379Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Eu KW, Seow-Choen F (1997) Functional problems in adult rectal prolapse and controversies in surgical management. Br J Surg 84: 904–911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maliba TE, Baig MK, Wexner SD (2005) Surgical management of rectal prolapse. Arch Surg 140: 63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mellgren A, Bremmer S, Johansson C, Dolk A, Uden R, Ahlback SO, Holmstrom B (1994) Defecography: results of investigations in 2,816 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 37:1133–1141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mollen RM, Kuipers JH, Van Hoek F (2000) Effects of rectal mobilization and lateral ligaments division on colonic anorectal function. Dis Colon Rectum 43: 1283–1287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Penninckx F, D’Hoore A, Sohier S, Kerremans R (1996) Abdominal rectopexy versus Delorme’s procedure for rectal prolapse: a predictable outcome. Int J Colorectal Dis 12: 49–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salkeld G, Bagia M, Solomon M (2004) Economic impact of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy. Br J Surg 91: 1188–1191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scaglia M, Fasth S, Hallgren T, Nordgren S, Oresland T, Hulten L (1994) Abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse: influence of surgical technique on functional outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 37: 805–813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Senagore AJ (2003) Management of rectal prolapse: the role of laparoscopic approaches. Semin Laparosc Surg 10: 197–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Speakman CTM, Madden MV, Nicholls RJ, Kamm MA (1991) Lateral ligament division during rectopexy causes constipation but prevents recurrence: results of a prospective randomized study. Br J Surg 78: 1431–1433PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Abdominal SurgeryUniversity Hospital GasthuisbergLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations