Outcome of laparoscopic rectopexy versus perineal rectosigmoidectomy for full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients
Authors:
- 9 April 2011
- journal article
- Published by Springer Nature in Surgical Endoscopy
- Vol. 25 (8) , 2699-2702
Abstract
The balance between abdominal and perineal approaches for rectal prolapse is always the higher morbidity but better outcome in the former setting. Therefore, perineal approaches have been preferred for the treatment of full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) in elderly patients. However, laparoscopic rectopexy with or without resection also may be used for elderly patients and may confer the same benefits. The objective of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of laparoscopic rectopexy compared with perineal rectosigmoidectomy for FTRP in elderly patients. Between July 2000 and June 2009, eight consecutive patients (8 women; mean age, 71 (range, 65–77) years) with FTRP underwent laparoscopic rectopexy (LAP group). During the same period, 143 patients underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PRS group). A total of 123 patients were selected who underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy (117 women; mean age, 80.7 (range, 66–98) years). Three patients (37.5%) in the LAP group and 29 patients (23.6%) in the PRS group had undergone previous operations for rectal prolapse. The mean follow-up periods were 6.9 months and 12.8 months, respectively. In the LAP group, operative time was longer (166.5 vs. 73.5 minutes; p > 0.05) and bleeding loss was more (101.7 vs. 31.6; p < 0.05), whereas the length of hospitalization was same between the two groups (5.4 vs. 5.3 days; p > 0.05). Postoperative complications included an incisional hernia in the LAP group (12.5%) and urinary retention (4.8%), anastomotic disruption (2.4%), urinary tract infection (1.6%), and atelectasis (1.6%) in the PRS group (13.8%). Recurrences were 1 (12.5%) in the LAP group and 14 (11.4%) in the PRS group. Laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure in elderly patients with FTRP but results in increased operative time.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Long-Term Functional Outcomes After Laparoscopic and Open Rectopexy for the Treatment of Rectal ProlapseDiseases of the Colon & Rectum, 2008
- Benefits of Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection Are More Pronounced in Elderly PatientsDiseases of the Colon & Rectum, 2008
- Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for Total Rectal ProlapseSurgery Today, 2005
- Outcome of Laparoscopic Rectopexy for Complete Rectal Prolapse in Patients Older than 70 Years Versus Younger PatientsSurgery Today, 2004
- Open vs. Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal ProlapseDiseases of the Colon & Rectum, 2003
- Perineal rectosigmoidectomy (Altemeier's procedure): a review of physiology, technique and outcomeTechniques in Coloproctology, 2002
- Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapseBritish Journal of Surgery, 2002
- Functional results of operative treatment of rectal prolapse over an 11-year periodDiseases of the Colon & Rectum, 1999
- Abdominal resection rectopexy with pelvic floor repair versus perineal rectosigmoidectomy and pelvic floor repair for full-thickness rectal prolapseBritish Journal of Surgery, 1994
- Nineteen Yearsʼ Experience with the One-Stage Perineal Repair of Rectal ProlapseAnnals of Surgery, 1971