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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Schiedeck TH, Schwandner O, Scheele J, Farke S, Bruch HP (2005) Rectal prolapse: which surgical option is appropriate? Langenbecks Arch Surg 390:8–14
Madiba TE, Baig MK, Wexner SD (2005) Surgical management of rectal prolapse. Arch Surg 140:63–73
Bachoo P, Brazzelli M, Grant A (2000) Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD001758
Berman IR (1992) Sutureless laparoscopic rectopexy for procidentia: technique and implications. Dis Colon Rectum 35:689–693
Cuesta MA, Borgstein PJ, de JD, Meijer S (1993) Laparoscopic rectopexy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 3:456–458
Munro W, Avramovic J, Roney W (1993) Laparoscopic rectopexy. J Laparoendosc Surg 3:55–58
Kwok SP, Carey DP, Lau WY, Li AK (1994) Laparoscopic rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum 37:947–948
Baker R, Senagore AJ, Luchtefeld MA (1995) Laparoscopic-assisted vs open resection: rectopexy offers excellent results. Dis Colon Rectum 38:199–201
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Salkeld G, Bagia M, Solomon M (2004) Economic impact of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy. Br J Surg 91:1188–1191
Nunoo-Mensah JW, Efron JE, Young-Fadok TM (2007) Laparoscopic rectopexy. Surg Endosc 21:325–326
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
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
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
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9598-9