Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse

Abstract

Background: The objectives of this study were to compare both subjective clinical outcomes and the objective stress response of laparoscopic and open abdominal rectopexy in patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. Abdominal rectopexy for patients with rectal prolapse is well suited for a laparoscopic approach as no resection or anastomosis is necessary. Methods: Forty patients with a full-thickness rectal prolapse were randomized before operation to a laparoscopic group and an open group. They agreed to conform to a clinical pathway (CP) of liquid diet (CP1) and full mobility (CP2) on day 1, solid diet (CP3) on day 2 and discharge (CP4) before day 5. Their compliance was monitored by an assessor blinded to the operative group, who also rated pain and mobility. Patient-controlled morphine use was documented. Neuroendocrine and immune stress response and respiratory function were measured. Results: Some 75 per cent of all clinical pathway objectives of early recovery were achieved in the laparoscopic group compared with 37 per cent in the open group (P < 0·01). Significant differences in favour of laparoscopy were noted with regard to narcotic requirements, and pain and mobility scores. Differences in objective measures of stress response favouring laparoscopy were found for urinary catecholamines, interleukin 6, serum cortisol and C-reactive protein. No differences were noted in respiratory function but significant respiratory morbidity was greater in the open group (P < 0·05). None of the measured outcomes, subjective or objective, favoured the open group apart from operating time, which was significantly shorter (153 versus 102 min; P < 0·01). Conclusion: This study has demonstrated significant subjective and objective differences in favour of a laparoscopic technique for abdominal rectopexy. The advantages were all short term but no evidence of any adverse effect on longer-term outcomes was observed.