Cargando…

Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate recurrence and functional outcome of three surgical techniques for rectopexy: open (OR), laparoscopic (LR), and robot-assisted (RR). A case–control study was performed to study recurrence after the three operative techniques used for rectal procidentia. T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Hoog, Dominique E. N. M., Heemskerk, Jeroen, Nieman, Fred H. M., van Gemert, Wim G., Baeten, Cor G. M. I., Bouvy, Nicole D.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733192/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19588158
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0766-3
_version_ 1782171098518913024
author de Hoog, Dominique E. N. M.
Heemskerk, Jeroen
Nieman, Fred H. M.
van Gemert, Wim G.
Baeten, Cor G. M. I.
Bouvy, Nicole D.
author_facet de Hoog, Dominique E. N. M.
Heemskerk, Jeroen
Nieman, Fred H. M.
van Gemert, Wim G.
Baeten, Cor G. M. I.
Bouvy, Nicole D.
author_sort de Hoog, Dominique E. N. M.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate recurrence and functional outcome of three surgical techniques for rectopexy: open (OR), laparoscopic (LR), and robot-assisted (RR). A case–control study was performed to study recurrence after the three operative techniques used for rectal procidentia. The secondary aim of this study was to examine the differences in functional results between the three techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent a rectopexy between January 2000 and September 2006 enrolled in this study. Peri-operative data were collected from patient records and functional outcome was assessed by telephonic questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (71 females, mean age 56.4 years) underwent a rectopexy for rectal procidentia. Nine patients (11%) had a recurrence; one (2%) after OR, four (27%) after LR, and four (20%) after RR. RR showed significantly higher recurrence rates when controlled for age and follow-up time compared to OR, (p = 0.027), while LR showed near-significant higher rates (p = 0.059). Functional results improved in all three operation types, without a difference between them. CONCLUSIONS: LR and RR are adequate procedures but have a higher risk of recurrence. A RCT is needed assessing the definitive role of (robotic assistance in) laparoscopic surgery in rectopexy.
format Text
id pubmed-2733192
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27331922009-08-28 Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study de Hoog, Dominique E. N. M. Heemskerk, Jeroen Nieman, Fred H. M. van Gemert, Wim G. Baeten, Cor G. M. I. Bouvy, Nicole D. Int J Colorectal Dis Original Article PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate recurrence and functional outcome of three surgical techniques for rectopexy: open (OR), laparoscopic (LR), and robot-assisted (RR). A case–control study was performed to study recurrence after the three operative techniques used for rectal procidentia. The secondary aim of this study was to examine the differences in functional results between the three techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent a rectopexy between January 2000 and September 2006 enrolled in this study. Peri-operative data were collected from patient records and functional outcome was assessed by telephonic questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (71 females, mean age 56.4 years) underwent a rectopexy for rectal procidentia. Nine patients (11%) had a recurrence; one (2%) after OR, four (27%) after LR, and four (20%) after RR. RR showed significantly higher recurrence rates when controlled for age and follow-up time compared to OR, (p = 0.027), while LR showed near-significant higher rates (p = 0.059). Functional results improved in all three operation types, without a difference between them. CONCLUSIONS: LR and RR are adequate procedures but have a higher risk of recurrence. A RCT is needed assessing the definitive role of (robotic assistance in) laparoscopic surgery in rectopexy. Springer-Verlag 2009-07-09 2009-10 /pmc/articles/PMC2733192/ /pubmed/19588158 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0766-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2009
spellingShingle Original Article
de Hoog, Dominique E. N. M.
Heemskerk, Jeroen
Nieman, Fred H. M.
van Gemert, Wim G.
Baeten, Cor G. M. I.
Bouvy, Nicole D.
Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study
title Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study
title_full Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study
title_fullStr Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study
title_full_unstemmed Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study
title_short Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study
title_sort recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733192/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19588158
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0766-3
work_keys_str_mv AT dehoogdominiqueenm recurrenceandfunctionalresultsafteropenversusconventionallaparoscopicversusrobotassistedlaparoscopicrectopexyforrectalprolapseacasecontrolstudy
AT heemskerkjeroen recurrenceandfunctionalresultsafteropenversusconventionallaparoscopicversusrobotassistedlaparoscopicrectopexyforrectalprolapseacasecontrolstudy
AT niemanfredhm recurrenceandfunctionalresultsafteropenversusconventionallaparoscopicversusrobotassistedlaparoscopicrectopexyforrectalprolapseacasecontrolstudy
AT vangemertwimg recurrenceandfunctionalresultsafteropenversusconventionallaparoscopicversusrobotassistedlaparoscopicrectopexyforrectalprolapseacasecontrolstudy
AT baetencorgmi recurrenceandfunctionalresultsafteropenversusconventionallaparoscopicversusrobotassistedlaparoscopicrectopexyforrectalprolapseacasecontrolstudy
AT bouvynicoled recurrenceandfunctionalresultsafteropenversusconventionallaparoscopicversusrobotassistedlaparoscopicrectopexyforrectalprolapseacasecontrolstudy