J-L Faucheron1,2,3,4, B Trilling5,6, S Barbois5, P-Y Sage5, P-A Waroquet5, F Reche5,6. 1. Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, Michallon University Hospital, 38000, Grenoble, France. JLFaucheron@chu-grenoble.fr. 2. University Grenoble Alps, UMR 5525, CNRS, TIMC-IMAG, 38000, Grenoble, France. JLFaucheron@chu-grenoble.fr. 3. Ambulatory Surgery, Department of Surgery, Michallon University Hospital, 38000, Grenoble, France. JLFaucheron@chu-grenoble.fr. 4. Colorectal Unit, Ambulatory Unit, Department of Surgery, Michallon University Hospital, CS 10 217, 38043, Grenoble Cedex, France. JLFaucheron@chu-grenoble.fr. 5. Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, Michallon University Hospital, 38000, Grenoble, France. 6. University Grenoble Alps, UMR 5525, CNRS, TIMC-IMAG, 38000, Grenoble, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ventral rectopexy to the promontory has become one of the most strongly advocated surgical treatments for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and deep enterocele. Despite its challenges, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with or without robotic assistance for selected patients can be performed with relatively minimal patient trauma thus creating the potential for same-day discharge. The aim of this prospective case-controlled study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and cost of day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with routine day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. METHODS: Between February 28, 2014 and March 3, 2015, 20 consecutive patients underwent day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse or deep enterocele at Michallon University Hospital, Grenoble. Patients were selected for day case surgery on the basis of motivation, favorable social circumstances, and general fitness. One out of every two patients underwent the robotic procedure (n = 10). Demographics, technical results, and costs were compared between both groups. RESULTS: Patients from both groups were comparable in terms of demographics and technical results. Patients operated on with the robot had significantly less pain (p = 0.045). Robotic rectopexy was associated with longer median operative time (94 vs 52.5 min, p < 0.001) and higher costs (9088 vs 3729 euros per procedure, p < 0.001) than laparoscopic rectopexy. CONCLUSIONS: Day case robotic ventral rectopexy is feasible and safe, but results in longer operative time and higher costs than classical laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse and enterocele.
BACKGROUND: Ventral rectopexy to the promontory has become one of the most strongly advocated surgical treatments for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and deep enterocele. Despite its challenges, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with or without robotic assistance for selected patients can be performed with relatively minimal patienttrauma thus creating the potential for same-day discharge. The aim of this prospective case-controlled study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and cost of day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with routine day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. METHODS: Between February 28, 2014 and March 3, 2015, 20 consecutive patients underwent day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse or deep enterocele at Michallon University Hospital, Grenoble. Patients were selected for day case surgery on the basis of motivation, favorable social circumstances, and general fitness. One out of every two patients underwent the robotic procedure (n = 10). Demographics, technical results, and costs were compared between both groups. RESULTS:Patients from both groups were comparable in terms of demographics and technical results. Patients operated on with the robot had significantly less pain (p = 0.045). Robotic rectopexy was associated with longer median operative time (94 vs 52.5 min, p < 0.001) and higher costs (9088 vs 3729 euros per procedure, p < 0.001) than laparoscopic rectopexy. CONCLUSIONS: Day case robotic ventral rectopexy is feasible and safe, but results in longer operative time and higher costs than classical laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse and enterocele.
Entities:
Keywords:
Day case surgery; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive surgery; Rectal prolapse; Rectopexy; Robotic surgery
Authors: J Mäkelä-Kaikkonen; T Rautio; K Klintrup; H Takala; M Vierimaa; P Ohtonen; J Mäkelä Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Dominique E N M de Hoog; Jeroen Heemskerk; Fred H M Nieman; Wim G van Gemert; Cor G M I Baeten; Nicole D Bouvy Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2009-07-09 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: C S Inaba; S Sujatha-Bhaskar; C Y Koh; M D Jafari; S D Mills; J C Carmichael; M J Stamos; A Pigazzi Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Julie Flynn; Jose T Larach; Joseph C H Kong; Satish K Warrier; Alexander Heriot Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: J Mäkelä-Kaikkonen; T Rautio; A Ohinmaa; S Koivurova; P Ohtonen; H Sintonen; J Mäkelä Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 3.781