Laparoscopic Versus Open Rectopexy for Full-Thickness Rectal Prolapse: a Comparative Study

  • M. Vivekananda
  • L. Ramachandra
  • B. V. DineshEmail author
Original Article


Abdominal rectopexy for patients with rectal prolapse is well suited for laparoscopic approach as no resection or anastomosis is necessary. The objective of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of laparoscopic and open abdominal Wells rectopexy in patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. Between January 2010 and December 2015, 70 patients underwent abdominal rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Among those 70 patients, 40 patients underwent open rectopexy and the remaining 30 patients underwent laparoscopic rectopexy based on preference of the patient. Both these groups were compared for operative time, intraoperative blood loss, post-operative pain, duration of post-operative stay, post-operative complications/morbidities, and recurrence. Mean operative time was longer in laparoscopic group compared to open group (204.83 min vs. 159 min; p < 0.001), mean intraoperative blood loss was less in laparoscopic group (43.18 ml vs. 121.13 ml; p < 0.001), post-operative pain was milder in laparoscopic group at 12 h, 24 h, and 48 h. Mean hospital stay post-operatively is shorter in the laparoscopic group (4.53 vs. 8.15 days; p < 0.001), complications/morbidity were lesser in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.05). Recurrence was observed in two patients in open rectopexy group and one patient in the laparoscopic group, p value is .733 which is statistically not significant. This study demonstrated significant differences in favor of laparoscopic rectopexy. To conclude the laparoscopic approach may be considered as a better approach for rectopexy in patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse.


Laparoscopic Open Full thickness Rectal prolapse Rectopexy Comparative study 



  1. 1.
    Senapti A (2001) Rectal prolapse. In: Phillips RK (ed) Colorectal surgery. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 251–271Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Flowers LK (2002) Rectal prolapse. In: E-medicine. Available at: http://
  3. 3.
    Moschcowitz AV (1912) The pathogenesis, anatomy and cure of pro-lapse of the rectum. SurgGynecolObstet 15:7–21Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broden B, Snellman B (1968) Procidentia of the rectum studied with cineradiography: a contribution to the discussion of causative mechanism. Dis Colon Rectum 11:330–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ramanujam PS, Venkatesh KS, Fietz MJ (1994) Perineal excision of rectal procidentia in elderly high-risk patients. A ten year experience. Dis Colon Rectum 37(10):1027–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Watts JD, Rothenberger DA, Buls JG, Goldberg SM, Nivatvongs S (1985) The management of procidentia. 30 years experience. Dis Colon Rectum 28(2):96–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Riansuwan W, Hull TL, Blast J, Hammel JP, Church JM (2010) Comparison of perineal operations with abdominal operations for full-thickness rectal prolapse. World J Surg 34(5):1116–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pemberton JD, Stalker LK (1939) Surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse. Ann Surg 109(5):799–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Solomon MJ, Eyers AA, Young CJ, Roberts RA (2002) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse. British J Surg 89:35–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Reitano MC (1999) Laparotomic vs. laparoscopic rectopexy in complete rectal prolapse. Dig Surg 16:415–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kellokumpu I, Kairaluoma M, Dis TV (2003) Colon Rectum 46:353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Palanivelu C, Textbook and Atlas: Art of Laproscopic Surgery:First edition: vol. 2: pp 1095Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khan SA, Kumar H, Gupta S (2016) IOSR J 15:135–137Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Surgeons of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General SurgeryKasturba Medical CollegeManipalIndia

Personalised recommendations