Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 27, 2026
Laparoscopic Non-Mesh Cerclage Pectopexy with Uterine Preservation for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Published on: October 25, 2024
Quality of life after laparoscopic resection rectopexy
Mia Kim1, Joachim Reibetanz, Lars Boenicke
1Department of General, Gastrointestinal, Vascular and Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Oberduerrbacher Str. 6, 97080, Würzburg, Germany. kim_m@chirurgie.uni-wuerzburg.de
Purpose:
This study evaluated continence, constipation, and quality of life (QoL) after laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Results were compared with existing data after perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PRS).
Methods:
From May 2003 to February 2008, consecutive patients suffering from full-thickness rectal prolapse undergoing LRR were retrospectively studied. A standardized questionnaire including the Cleveland Clinic Constipation and Incontinence Scores (CCCS and CCIS) as well as general and constipation-related QoL scores (EQ-5D and PAC-QOL) was administered. Results were compared with those after PRS. For statistic analysis, the Wilcoxon test (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS) and two-sample Student's t test (CCCS, CCIS, and PAC-QOL) were used for LRR, for the comparison of both procedures Mann-Whitney test (EQ-5D) and two-sample Student's t test (EQ-VAS, CCCS, CCIS, and PAC-QOL).
Results:
Eighteen patients, 15 female, aged 58.1 (±20.2) years underwent LRR. Eleven patients completed follow-up. Postoperatively, neither functional outcome nor QoL improved. Two recurrences occurred, morbidity was n = 2, and mortality n = 1. In comparison, patients after PRS benefit from improved constipation, general QoL measures, status of health, and all dimensions of constipation-related QoL.
Conclusions:
Patients after LRR do not benefit from improved general nor constipation-related QoL nor improved functional results compared to PRS.
