Robot-assisted rectopexy is a safe and feasible option for treatment of rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Rectal prolapse is seen in up to one in 100 elderly women and results in symptoms such as incontinence, mucus secretion and constipation. The aim of this study was to present short- and long term outcomes after robot-assisted rectopexy in patients with rectal prolapse.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients diagnosed with rectal prolapse at our institution underwent robot-assisted rectopexy. Data regarding the surgical procedure and post-operative morbidity were collected retrospectively. Patients were contacted to register long-term results regarding recurrence, incontinence and satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 24 consecutive patients underwent robot-assisted rectopexy from October 2010 to July 2012. Data regarding their long-term outcome was available for 18 patients at follow-up (average ten months). 50% of the patients suffered from faecal incontinence before surgery (n = 9/18, 50%). The mean age at surgery was 72 years (28-93 years). The mean duration of surgery was 123 min. (70-245 min.). The median length of stay in hospital was 4.1 days (0-15 days). There was one procedure-related complication (small-bowel obstruction) resulting in reoperation. At the time of follow-up, two patients (11%) had a subjective recurrence of rectal prolapse, and three patients (17%) had faecal incontinence. 89% were satisfied with the operation, and 94% would recommend this operation to other patients with the same condition.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted rectopexy is a safe procedure to in patients with rectal prolapse and is associated with acceptable functional outcomes and recurrence rates. There is no evidence in the literature of advantages compared with the corresponding laparoscopic procedure.

FUNDING

Not relevant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not relevant.

CORRESPONDENCE: Camilla Haahr. E-mail: camillahaahr84@gmail.com

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at www.danmedj.dk.

REFERENCE: Dan Med J 2014;61(5):A4842