Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jones OM, Cunningham C, Lindsey I (2011) The assessment and management of rectal prolapse, rectal intussusception, rectocoele, and enterocoele in adults. BMJ 342:325–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kariv Y, Delaney CP, Casillas S et al (2006) Long-term outcome after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal prolapse: a case-control study. Surg Endosc 20:35–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sajid MS, Siddiqui MR, Baig MK (2010) Open versus laparoscopic repair of full-thickness rectal prolapse: a re-meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 12:515–525

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Faucheron JL, Voirin D, Riboud R, Waroquet PA, Noel J (2012) Laparoscopic anterior rectopexy to the promontory for full-thickness rectal prolapse in 175 consecutive patients: short- and long-term follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum 55:660–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jarry J, Moreau Gaudry A, Long JA, Chipon E, Cinquin P, Faucheron JL (2013) Miniaturized robotic laparoscope-holder for rectopexy: first results of a prospective study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23:351–355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Faucheron JL, Barot S, Collomb D, Hohn N, Anglade D, Dubreuil A (2014) Dynamic cystocolpoproctography is superior to functional pelvic MRI in the diagnosis of posterior pelvic floor disorders: results of a prospective study. Colorectal Dis 16:240–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. D’Hoore A, Penninckx F (2006) Laparoscopic ventral rectocolpopexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients. Surg Endosc 20:1919–1923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Boccasanta P, Rosati R, Venturi M et al (1998) Comparison of laparoscopic rectopexy with open technique in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse: clinical and functional results. Surg Laparosc Endosc 8:460–465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Solomon MJ, Young CJ, Eyers AA, Roberts RA (2002) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 89:35–39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. D’Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F (2004) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 91:1500–1505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Purkayastha S, Tekkis P, Athanasiou T et al (2005) A comparison of open versus laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1930–1940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Slawik S, Soulsby R, Carter H, Payne H, Dixon AR (2008) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy, posterior colporraphy and vaginal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of recto-genital prolapse and mechanical outlet obstruction. Colorectal Dis 10:138–143

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Buchs NC, Pugin F, Ris F, Volonte F, Morel P, Roche B (2013) Early experience with robotic rectopexy. Int J Med Robot 9:e61–e65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mäkelä-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Klintrup K et al (2014) Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a matched-pairs study of operative details and complications. Tech Coloproctol 18:151–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. De Hoog DENM, Heemskerk J, Nieman FHM, van Gemert WG, Baeten CGMI, Bouvy ND (2009) Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case-control study. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:1201–1206

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 54:342–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Heemskerk J, de Hoog DENM, van Gemert WG, Baeten CGMI, Greve JWM, Bouvy ND (2007) Laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time. Dis Colon Rectum 50:1825–1830

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Mantoo S, Podevin J, Regenet N, Rigaud J, Lehur PA, Meurette G (2013) Is robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy superior to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the management of obstructed defaecation. Colorectal Dis 15:469–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Perrenot C, Germain A, Scherrer ML, Ayav A, Brunaud L, Bresler L (2013) Long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 56:909–1014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Germain A, Perrenot C, Scherrer ML et al (2014) Long-term outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients. Colorectal Dis 16:198–202

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Faucheron JL, Trilling B, Girard E, Sage PY, Barbois S, Reche F (2015) Anterior rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: technical and functional results. World J Gastroenterol 21:5049–5055

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Genevieve Trilling for English proofreading, to Dr. Martine Richard, MD, and Mrs Sofia Kowalski who provided ambulatory data results, to Prof. Jean-Luc Bosson, MD, PhD, who provided methodology support and review, and to Mrs Kristina Skåre who provided statistical expertise.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, Michallon University Hospital, 38000, Grenoble, France

    J.-L. Faucheron, B. Trilling, S. Barbois, P.-Y. Sage, P.-A. Waroquet & F. Reche

  2. University Grenoble Alps, UMR 5525, CNRS, TIMC-IMAG, 38000, Grenoble, France

    J.-L. Faucheron, B. Trilling & F. Reche

  3. Ambulatory Surgery, Department of Surgery, Michallon University Hospital, 38000, Grenoble, France

    J.-L. Faucheron

  4. Colorectal Unit, Ambulatory Unit, Department of Surgery, Michallon University Hospital, CS 10 217, 38043, Grenoble Cedex, France

    J.-L. Faucheron

Authors
  1. J.-L. Faucheron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Trilling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Barbois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P.-Y. Sage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P.-A. Waroquet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. F. Reche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J.-L. Faucheron.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Prof. Jean-Luc Faucheron received honoraria for punctual interventions, punctual consultancies and had some reimbursed travels and prepaid subscriptions for meetings from AMI, Covidien, Medtronic, Ethicon, MSD, Legrand, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Fabian Reche has a commercial relationship with Endocontrol as a consultant and has been reimbursed for travel and meeting subscriptions by Covidien, Baxter, AMI, and Leo Pharma. Drs. Sandrine Barbois, Bertrand Trilling, Pierre-Yves Sage, and Pierre-Alexandre Waroquet have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

For this study, patients have signed an informed consent.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Faucheron, JL., Trilling, B., Barbois, S. et al. Day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective study. Tech Coloproctol 20, 695–700 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-016-1518-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-016-1518-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation