PURPOSE: This study evaluated continence, constipation, and quality of life (QoL) after laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Results were compared with existing data after perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PRS). METHODS: From May 2003 to February 2008, consecutive patients suffering from full-thickness rectal prolapse undergoing LRR were retrospectively studied. A standardized questionnaire including the Cleveland Clinic Constipation and Incontinence Scores (CCCS and CCIS) as well as general and constipation-related QoL scores (EQ-5D and PAC-QOL) was administered. Results were compared with those after PRS. For statistic analysis, the Wilcoxon test (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS) and two-sample Student's t test (CCCS, CCIS, and PAC-QOL) were used for LRR, for the comparison of both procedures Mann-Whitney test (EQ-5D) and two-sample Student's t test (EQ-VAS, CCCS, CCIS, and PAC-QOL). RESULTS: Eighteen patients, 15 female, aged 58.1 (±20.2) years underwent LRR. Eleven patients completed follow-up. Postoperatively, neither functional outcome nor QoL improved. Two recurrences occurred, morbidity was n = 2, and mortality n = 1. In comparison, patients after PRS benefit from improved constipation, general QoL measures, status of health, and all dimensions of constipation-related QoL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients after LRR do not benefit from improved general nor constipation-related QoL nor improved functional results compared to PRS.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated continence, constipation, and quality of life (QoL) after laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Results were compared with existing data after perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PRS). METHODS: From May 2003 to February 2008, consecutive patients suffering from full-thickness rectal prolapse undergoing LRR were retrospectively studied. A standardized questionnaire including the Cleveland Clinic Constipation and Incontinence Scores (CCCS and CCIS) as well as general and constipation-related QoL scores (EQ-5D and PAC-QOL) was administered. Results were compared with those after PRS. For statistic analysis, the Wilcoxon test (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS) and two-sample Student's t test (CCCS, CCIS, and PAC-QOL) were used for LRR, for the comparison of both procedures Mann-Whitney test (EQ-5D) and two-sample Student's t test (EQ-VAS, CCCS, CCIS, and PAC-QOL). RESULTS: Eighteen patients, 15 female, aged 58.1 (±20.2) years underwent LRR. Eleven patients completed follow-up. Postoperatively, neither functional outcome nor QoL improved. Two recurrences occurred, morbidity was n = 2, and mortality n = 1. In comparison, patients after PRS benefit from improved constipation, general QoL measures, status of health, and all dimensions of constipation-related QoL. CONCLUSIONS:Patients after LRR do not benefit from improved general nor constipation-related QoL nor improved functional results compared to PRS.
Authors: P Boccasanta; R Rosati; M Venturi; U Cioffi; M De Simone; M Montorsi; A Peracchia Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Sean C Glasgow; Elisa H Birnbaum; Ira J Kodner; James W Fleshman; David W Dietz Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2008-05-31 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Gaetano Gallo; Mario Trompetto; Alberto Realis Luc; Giuseppe Clerico; Giuseppe Sammarco; Eugenio Novelli; Gilda De Paola Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2021-06-17
Authors: T Laubert; M Kleemann; U J Roblick; C Bürk; P Hildebrand; J Lewejohann; E Schlöricke; H-P Bruch Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 3.781