Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2007 Nov;50(11):1825-30.
doi: 10.1007/s10350-007-9017-2.

Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time

Jeroen Heemskerk  1 , Dominique E N M de Hoog, Wim G van Gemert, Cor G M I Baeten, Jan Willem M Greve, Nicole D Bouvy
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time

Jeroen Heemskerk et al. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007 Nov.

Abstract

Purpose: Laparoscopic rectopexy has become one of the most advocated treatments for full-thickness rectal prolapse, offering good functional results compared with open surgery and resulting in less postoperative pain and faster convalescence. However, laparoscopic rectopexy can be technically demanding. Once having mastered dexterity, with robotic assistance, laparoscopic rectopexy can be performed faster. Moreover, it shortens the learning curve in simple laparoscopic tasks. This may lead to faster and safer laparoscopic surgery. Robot-assisted rectopexy has been proven safe and feasible; however, until now, no study has been performed comparing costs and time consumption in conventional laparoscopic rectopexy vs. robot-assisted rectopexy.

Methods: Our first 14 cases of robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy were reviewed and compared with 19 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic rectopexy in the same period.

Results: Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy did not show more complications. However, the average operating time was 39 minutes longer, and costs were euro 557.29 (or: dollars 745.09) higher.

Conclusion: Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure but results in increased time and higher costs than conventional laparoscopy.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Rose SM. Classic articles in colonic and rectal surgery. Edmond Delorme 1847-929. Dis Colon Rectum. 1985;28:544–553. doi: 10.1007/BF02554110. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Williams JG, Rothenberger DA, Madoff RD, Goldberg SM. Treatment of rectal prolapse in the elderly by perineal rectosigmoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1992;35:830–834. doi: 10.1007/BF02047867. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lasheen AE, Khalifa S, Askry SM, Elzeftawy AA. Closed rectopexy with transanal resection for complete rectal prolapse in adults. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;9:980–984. doi: 10.1016/j.gassur.2005.04.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Watkins BP, Landercasper J, Belzer GE, et al. Long-term follow-up of the modified Delorme procedure for rectal prolapse. Arch Surg. 2003;138:498–502. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.138.5.498. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Altemeier WA, Giuseffi J, Hoxworth P. Treatment of extensive prolapse of the rectum in aged or debilitated patients. AMA Arch Surg. 1952;65:72–80. - PubMed

Publication types