Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 16, No. 5, 1999
Issue release date: 1999
Dig Surg 1999;16:415–419

Laparotomic vs. Laparoscopic Rectopexy in Complete Rectal Prolapse

Boccasanta P. · Venturi M. · Reitano M.C. · Salamina G. · Rosati R. · Montorsi M. · Fichera G. · Strinna M. · Peracchia A.
aDepartment of General and Oncologic Surgery, University of Milan, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, IRCCS, Milan, and bDepartment of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in


Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the functional and clinical results of laparotomic and laparoscopic rectopexy in 2 homogeneous groups of patients with complete rectal prolapse and fecal incontinence. Methods: Between January 1989 and December 1997, twenty-three patients underwent abdominal rectopexy. Thirteen patients (group A, 12 females and 1 male, mean age 57.3, range 22–76 years), and 10 patients (group B, 10 females, mean age 52.3, range 26–70 years) were submitted respectively to either Wells laparotomic or laparoscopic rectopexy by the same surgical team using the same surgical technique and materials. Before the operation a detailed clinical history was collected, and the patients were studied by inspection and digital examination of the anorectum, proctosigmoidoscopy, pancolonic transit time, dynamic defecography, anorectal manometry and anal electromyography. After the operation all patients underwent perineal physiotherapy, external electric stimulation, and perineal biofeedback. Mean follow-up was 37.1 (range 6–90) months in group A and 25.7 (range 6–49) months in group B. Values were compared by χ2, Mann-Whitney U, and Wilcoxon tests as appropriate. Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05. Results: In both groups dyschezia and fecal incontinence improved significantly (p < 0.05) after the operation. The basal pressure of the anal sphincter, squeezing pressure and rectoanal reflex improved without significance, and anal-perineal pain was not significantly reduced. In group B the postoperative hospital stay was lower than in group A, with a reduction in costs. Conclusion: Laparoscopic Wells rectopexy has the same clinical and functional results as laparotomic rectopexy, but with a shorter postoperative hospital stay and lower costs.

Copyright © 1999 S.Karger AG, Basel

Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.


  1. Pemberton J, Stalker LK: Surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse. Ann Surg 1939;109:799.
  2. McCue JL, Thomson JPS: Clinical and functional results of abdominal rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 1991;78:921–923.
  3. Berman IR: Sutureless laparoscopic rectopexy for procidentia: Technique and implications. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:689–693.
  4. Senagore AJ, Luchtefeld MA, Mac Keigan JM: Rectopexy. J Laparoendosc Surg 1993;3:339–343.
  5. Wells C: New operation for rectal prolapse. J R Soc Med 1959;52:805–813.
  6. Pescatori M, Anastasio G, Bottini C, Mentasti A: New grading and scoring for anal incontinence. Evaluation of 335 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:482–487.
  7. Hinton JM, Lennard-Jones JE, Young AC: A new method for studying gut transit time using radiopaque markers. Gut 1969;10:842–847.
  8. Mahieu P, Pringot J, Bodart P: Defecography. Contribution to the diagnosis of defecation disorders. Gastrointest Radiol 1978;75:623–631.
  9. Costalat G, Garrigues JM, Drawed F, Veyrac M, Vernhet J: Rectopexie antéro-postérieure pour troubles de la statique rectale: Résultats cliniques et radiologiques. Intérêt de la rectographie numérisée. A propos de trente cas. Ann Chir 1989;43:733–743.

    External Resources

  10. Greenhalgh T: How to read a paper. Papers that tell you what things cost (economic analyses). BMJ 1997;315:596–599.
  11. Farouk R, Duthie GS, Bartolo DCC, MacGregor AB: Restoration of continence following rectopexy for rectal prolapse and recovery of the internal anal sphincter electromyogram. Br J Surg 1992;79:107–113.
  12. Speakman CT, Madden MV, Nicholls RJ, Kamm MA: Lateral ligament division during rectopexy causes constipation but prevents recurrences: Results of a prospective, randomized study. Br J Surg 1991;78:1431–1433.
  13. Blatchford GJ, Perry RE, Christiansen MA, Thorson AG: Rectopexy without resection for rectal prolapse. Am J Surg 1989;158:574–576.

    External Resources

  14. Mann CV, Hoffman C: Complete rectal prolapse: The anatomical and functional results of treatment by extended abdominal rectopexy. Br J Surg 1988;75:34–37.

    External Resources

  15. Yoshioka K, Heyen F, Keighley MRB: Functional results after posterior abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 1989;32:835–838.

    External Resources

  16. Frykman HM, Goldberg SM: The surgical treatment of rectal procidentia. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1969;129:1225–1230.

    External Resources

  17. Farouk R, Duthie GS; MacGregor AB, Bartolo DCC: Rectoanal inhibition and incontinence in patients with rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 1994;81:107–113.
  18. Shafik A: Pudendal canal syndrome decompression in the treatment of idiopathic faecal incontinence. Dig Surg 1992;9:265–271.
  19. Shafik A: Pudendal canal syndrome. Description of a new syndrome and its treatment. Report of seven cases. Coloproctology 1991;13:102–109.
  20. Liu CY: Laparoscopic treatment for genuine urinary stress incontinence. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1994;8:789–798.
  21. Darzi A, Henry MM, Guillou PJ, et al: Stapled laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Surg Endosc 1995;9:230–236.
  22. Milson JW: Current role of laparoscopy in rectal prolapse. Proc 8th Annu Colorectal Dis Symp, Cleveland Clinic Florida; Fort Lauderdale, 1997, pp 651–657.
  23. Wexner SD, Cheope JD, Jose MN Jorge, Heyman S, Jagelman DC: Biofeedback for constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:145–150.

Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50