Skip to main content
Log in

Day case laparoscopic rectopexy is feasible, safe, and cost effective for selected patients

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

With the ever-present financial and bed pressures in the UK health care system, there is a drive toward increasing day surgery provision. Laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery lends itself well to the day case setting. This study aimed to show that day case laparoscopic rectopexy (DCLR) is safe, produces a good clinical outcome, and is cost effective for selected well-motivated patients.

Methods

Since 2001, 28 patients have undergone procedures for rectal prolapse at the authors’ institution. Of 12 laparoscopic rectopexy patients, 5 were selected for DCLR on the basis of home circumstances, general fitness, and patient wishes. Patient satisfaction with DCLR was assessed by telephone questionnaire. A retrospective analysis of case notes was performed to compare complications, analgesia requirements, and length of hospital stay. In-hospital costs for all rectal prolapse procedures were calculated.

Results

The DCLR group consisted of generally younger and fitter patients. One patient in the DCLR group had persistent abdominal pain and diarrhea requiring an emergency visit. Four of the five patients in the DCLR group were available for telephone interview. Three had stopped analgesia by the third day, reporting their experience as excellent or good. They had no hesitation recommending the procedure for day case usage. Whereas Delorme’s procedure and inpatient laparoscopic rectopexy cost much the same, there is a clear cost benefit with DCLR for selected patients of approximately £1,000 ($1,962) per patient.

Conclusion

Day case laparoscopic rectopexy has never been reported previously. It is safe, feasible, and acceptable for selected well-motivated patients. Compared with Delorme’s procedure and inpatient laparoscopic rectopexy, savings of £1,000 per patient can be achieved because of an average 3-day decrease in bed occupancy.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schiedeck TH, Schwandner O, Scheele J, Farke S, Bruch HP (2005) Rectal prolapse: which surgical option is appropriate? Langenbecks Arch Surg 390:8–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Madiba TE, Baig MK, Wexner SD (2005) Surgical management of rectal prolapse. Arch Surg 140:63–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bachoo P, Brazzelli M, Grant A (2000) Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD001758

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Berman IR (1992) Sutureless laparoscopic rectopexy for procidentia: technique and implications. Dis Colon Rectum 35:689–693

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cuesta MA, Borgstein PJ, de JD, Meijer S (1993) Laparoscopic rectopexy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 3:456–458

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Munro W, Avramovic J, Roney W (1993) Laparoscopic rectopexy. J Laparoendosc Surg 3:55–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kwok SP, Carey DP, Lau WY, Li AK (1994) Laparoscopic rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum 37:947–948

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Baker R, Senagore AJ, Luchtefeld MA (1995) Laparoscopic-assisted vs open resection: rectopexy offers excellent results. Dis Colon Rectum 38:199–201

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Boccasanta P, Rosati R, Venturi M, Montorsi M, Cioffi U, De SM, Strinna M, Peracchia A (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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Reitano MC, Salamina G, Rosati R, Montorsi M, Fichera G, Strinna M, Peracchia A (1999) Laparotomic vs laparoscopic rectopexy in complete rectal prolapse. Dig Surg 16:415–419

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kairaluoma MV, Viljakka MT, Kellokumpu IH (2003) Open vs laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse: a case-controlled study assessing short-term outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 46:353–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Demirbas S, Akin ML, Kalemoglu M, Ogun I, Celenk T (2005) Comparison of laparoscopic and open surgery for total rectal prolapse. Surg Today 35:446–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Purkayastha S, Tekkis P, Athanasiou T, Aziz O, Paraskevas P, Ziprin P, Darzi A (2005) A comparison of open vs laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1930–1940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kariv Y, Delaney CP, Casillas S, Hammel J, Nocero J, Bast J, Brady K, Fazio VW, Senagore AJ (2006) Long-term outcome after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal prolapse: a case-control study. Surg Endosc 20:35–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Salkeld G, Bagia M, Solomon M (2004) Economic impact of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy. Br J Surg 91:1188–1191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Nunoo-Mensah JW, Efron JE, Young-Fadok TM (2007) Laparoscopic rectopexy. Surg Endosc 21:325–326

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Carpelan-Holmstrom M, Kruuna O, Scheinin T (2006) Laparoscopic rectal prolapse surgery combined with short hospital stay is safe in elderly and debilitated patients. Surg Endosc 20:1353–1359

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaiwa Y, Kurokawa Y, Namiki K, Myojin T, Ansai M, Satomi S (2004) Outcome of laparoscopic rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse in patients older than 70 years versus younger patients. Surg Today 34:742–746

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Auguste T, Dubreuil A, Bost R, Bonaz B, Faucheron JL (2006) Technical and functional results after laparoscopic rectopexy to the promontory for complete rectal prolapse: prospective study in 54 consecutive patients. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 30:659–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sezai D, Demirbas S, Akin L, Kurt Y, Ogun I, Celenk T (2005) The impact of laparoscopic resection rectopexy in patients with total rectal prolapse. Mil Med 170:743–747

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lechaux D, Trebuchet G, Siproudhis L, Campion JP (2005) Laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a single-institution retrospective study evaluating surgical outcome`Surg Endosc 19:514–518

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Vijay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vijay, V., Halbert, J., Zissimopoulos, A. et al. Day case laparoscopic rectopexy is feasible, safe, and cost effective for selected patients. Surg Endosc 22, 1237–1240 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9598-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9598-9

Keywords

Navigation