BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) are favored for the treatment for rectal prolapse (RP) in the USA and Europe, respectively. This study aims to compare these two surgical techniques. METHODS: All patients who underwent LRR because of RP between January 2000 and January 2012 at Cleveland Clinic Florida (Weston, FL, USA) were identified, and all relevant characteristics were entered in a database. This same analysis was also conducted for all patients who underwent LVR in the Meander Medical Center (Amersfoort, the Netherlands) between January 2004 and January 2012. These two cohorts were retrospectively compared with regard to complications, functional results and recurrence. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (all female, mean age 50.1 years) were included in the LRR cohort at a mean follow-up of 57 (range 2-140; standard deviation (SD) ± 41.2) months. The LVR group consisted of 40 patients (36 females and 4 males) with a mean age of 67.0 years and a mean follow-up of 42 (range 2-82; SD ± 23.8) months. A significant reduction in constipation was observed in both cohorts after surgery: 57 versus 21% after LRR and 55 versus 23% after LVR (both P < 0.05). The incidence of incontinence also significantly decreased in both groups: 15% after LVR (55% before surgery) and 4% after LRR (61 % before surgery). Direct comparison of these two techniques showed a trend to significance (P = 0.09). Significantly, more complications occurred after LRR (n = 9: 1 major, 8 minor) then after LVR (n = 3: 2 major, 1 minor) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both LVR and LRR are effective for the treatment for RP. Although both techniques offer significant improvements in functional symptoms, continence may be better after LRR. However, LRR also had a higher complication rate then did LVR.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) are favored for the treatment for rectal prolapse (RP) in the USA and Europe, respectively. This study aims to compare these two surgical techniques. METHODS: All patients who underwent LRR because of RP between January 2000 and January 2012 at Cleveland Clinic Florida (Weston, FL, USA) were identified, and all relevant characteristics were entered in a database. This same analysis was also conducted for all patients who underwent LVR in the Meander Medical Center (Amersfoort, the Netherlands) between January 2004 and January 2012. These two cohorts were retrospectively compared with regard to complications, functional results and recurrence. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (all female, mean age 50.1 years) were included in the LRR cohort at a mean follow-up of 57 (range 2-140; standard deviation (SD) ± 41.2) months. The LVR group consisted of 40 patients (36 females and 4 males) with a mean age of 67.0 years and a mean follow-up of 42 (range 2-82; SD ± 23.8) months. A significant reduction in constipation was observed in both cohorts after surgery: 57 versus 21% after LRR and 55 versus 23% after LVR (both P < 0.05). The incidence of incontinence also significantly decreased in both groups: 15% after LVR (55% before surgery) and 4% after LRR (61 % before surgery). Direct comparison of these two techniques showed a trend to significance (P = 0.09). Significantly, more complications occurred after LRR (n = 9: 1 major, 8 minor) then after LVR (n = 3: 2 major, 1 minor) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both LVR and LRR are effective for the treatment for RP. Although both techniques offer significant improvements in functional symptoms, continence may be better after LRR. However, LRR also had a higher complication rate then did LVR.
Authors: A Senapati; R G Gray; L J Middleton; J Harding; R K Hills; N C M Armitage; L Buckley; J M A Northover Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Gaetano Gallo; Mario Trompetto; Alberto Realis Luc; Giuseppe Clerico; Giuseppe Sammarco; Eugenio Novelli; Gilda De Paola Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2021-06-17