TY - JOUR
T1 - Laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal Prolapse: A single-center study during 16 years
AU - Laubert, Tilman
AU - Kleemann, Markus
AU - Schorcht, Alexander
AU - Czymek, Ralf
AU - Jungbluth, Thomas
AU - Bader, Franz G.
AU - Bruch, H. P.
AU - Roblick, Uwe J.
PY - 2010/10/1
Y1 - 2010/10/1
N2 - Background: Many different techniques to treat rectal prolapse have been introduced. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy has been shown to entail benefits regarding both perioperative results and short-term outcome, whereas data for long-term outcome are scarce. Methods: Between 1993 and 2008, all laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse II° or III° were selected from a prospective laparoscopic colorectal surgery database. We analyzed demographic, perioperative, and follow-up results. We defined two periods (1993-2000 and 2001-2008) for comparison of data. Long-term follow-up was obtained by sending questionnaires to all patients. Evaluation included constipation, incontinence, and recurrence of prolapse. Results: Between January 1993 and November 2008, we performed 152 laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse. Median age was 64.1 years (±14.6). Conversion rate was 0.7% (1), mean operation time was 204 (±65.3) min, and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first (P < 0.0001). Mortality was 0.7% (n = 1). Complication rates were 4% (n = 6; major) and 19.2% (n = 29; minor), respectively. Mean length of hospital stay was 11.3 (±6.4) days and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first period (P < 0.0001). Mean time of follow-up was 47.7 (±41.6) months. Improvement or complete elimination of constipation was stated by 81.3% (65), and improvement or elimination of incontinence was stated by 67.3% (72). Overall recurrence rate was 11.1% (n = 10) with a rate of 5.6% (n = 5) for a 5-year period. Of those patients with previous perineal surgery for rectal prolapse, 53.8% (7/13) experienced recurrent prolapse after laparoscopic resection rectopexy in contrast to 3.9% (3/77) of patients without previous perineal prolapse surgery (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our data support the benefits of laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse regarding both perioperative results and long-term functional outcome. Preceding perineal or open abdominal operations have an impact on recurrence after laparoscopic resection rectopexy.
AB - Background: Many different techniques to treat rectal prolapse have been introduced. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy has been shown to entail benefits regarding both perioperative results and short-term outcome, whereas data for long-term outcome are scarce. Methods: Between 1993 and 2008, all laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse II° or III° were selected from a prospective laparoscopic colorectal surgery database. We analyzed demographic, perioperative, and follow-up results. We defined two periods (1993-2000 and 2001-2008) for comparison of data. Long-term follow-up was obtained by sending questionnaires to all patients. Evaluation included constipation, incontinence, and recurrence of prolapse. Results: Between January 1993 and November 2008, we performed 152 laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse. Median age was 64.1 years (±14.6). Conversion rate was 0.7% (1), mean operation time was 204 (±65.3) min, and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first (P < 0.0001). Mortality was 0.7% (n = 1). Complication rates were 4% (n = 6; major) and 19.2% (n = 29; minor), respectively. Mean length of hospital stay was 11.3 (±6.4) days and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first period (P < 0.0001). Mean time of follow-up was 47.7 (±41.6) months. Improvement or complete elimination of constipation was stated by 81.3% (65), and improvement or elimination of incontinence was stated by 67.3% (72). Overall recurrence rate was 11.1% (n = 10) with a rate of 5.6% (n = 5) for a 5-year period. Of those patients with previous perineal surgery for rectal prolapse, 53.8% (7/13) experienced recurrent prolapse after laparoscopic resection rectopexy in contrast to 3.9% (3/77) of patients without previous perineal prolapse surgery (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our data support the benefits of laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse regarding both perioperative results and long-term functional outcome. Preceding perineal or open abdominal operations have an impact on recurrence after laparoscopic resection rectopexy.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77957924974&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00464-010-0962-9
DO - 10.1007/s00464-010-0962-9
M3 - Journal articles
C2 - 20177911
AN - SCOPUS:77957924974
SN - 0930-2794
VL - 24
SP - 2401
EP - 2406
JO - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
JF - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
IS - 10
ER -