4.4 Article

Laparoscopic treatment of rectal prolapse:: experience gained in a prospective multicenter study

Journal

LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
Volume 387, Issue 3-4, Pages 130-137

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-002-0305-y

Keywords

rectal prolapse; laparoscopic colorectal surgery; multicenter study

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We report the findings of a prospective multicenter observational study carried out by the Study Group for Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery on patients undergoing laparoscopic or laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal prolapse. The study investigated the safety of various laparoscopic techniques in terms of perioperative and postoperative general and technique-specific complications and compared the results with those reported for open surgery in this area. Methods: Of the 150 patients undergoing laparoscopic or laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery for rectal prolapse 124 received rectopexy combined with resection and 26 rectopexy alone. In 85 patients a mesh was employed during rectopexy. The conversion rate was 5.3%. Results: Perioperative complications (21 surgical and 35 general perioperative) were recorded in 37 patients (24.7%). The reoperation rate was 5.3% (bleeding 2, anastomotic leak 2, ileus 4). No procedure-specific perioperative complications were observed. In particular, reduced surgical trauma led to fewer severe postoperative complications such as cardiopulmonary problems (3.3%). Conclusions: The techniques of conventional prolapse surgery can readily be translated to the laparoscopic modality, since oncological criteria do not have to be considered. The usually elderly patients in this group benefit to a particular degree from the known advantages associated with reduced surgical trauma. Perioperative morbidity is determined largely by the surgeon's experience. We therefore believe that rectal prolapse is a suitable indication for the minimally invasive modality in the hands of trained surgeons.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available