{"title":"减孔腹腔镜直肠切除术治疗全层直肠脱垂。","authors":"Chikako Kusunoki, Mamoru Uemura, Mao Osaki, Ayumi Nagae, Shinji Tokuyama, Kenji Kawai, Yusuke Takahashi, Masakazu Miyake, Michihiko Miyazaki, Masataka Ikeda, Takeshi Kato","doi":"10.1186/s12893-024-02545-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic rectopexy is an established treatment option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Recently, reduced port surgery (RPS) has emerged as a novel concept, offering reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes compared with conventional multiport surgery (MPS). This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of RPS for full-thickness rectal prolapse.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From October 2012 to December 2018, 37 patients (MPS: 10 cases, RPS: 27 cases) underwent laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy (Wells procedure) is the standard technique for full-thickness rectal prolapse at our hospital. RPS was performed using a multi-channel access device, with an additional 12-mm right-hand port. Short-term outcomes were retrospectively compared between MPS and RPS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were observed between MPS and RPS in the median operative time, the median blood loss volume, the postoperative complication rates, and median hospital stay duration after surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reduced port laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy may serve as an effective therapeutic option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, to establish the superiority of RPS over MPS, a prospective, randomized, controlled trial is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11370075/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reduced port laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse.\",\"authors\":\"Chikako Kusunoki, Mamoru Uemura, Mao Osaki, Ayumi Nagae, Shinji Tokuyama, Kenji Kawai, Yusuke Takahashi, Masakazu Miyake, Michihiko Miyazaki, Masataka Ikeda, Takeshi Kato\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12893-024-02545-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic rectopexy is an established treatment option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Recently, reduced port surgery (RPS) has emerged as a novel concept, offering reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes compared with conventional multiport surgery (MPS). This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of RPS for full-thickness rectal prolapse.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From October 2012 to December 2018, 37 patients (MPS: 10 cases, RPS: 27 cases) underwent laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy (Wells procedure) is the standard technique for full-thickness rectal prolapse at our hospital. RPS was performed using a multi-channel access device, with an additional 12-mm right-hand port. Short-term outcomes were retrospectively compared between MPS and RPS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were observed between MPS and RPS in the median operative time, the median blood loss volume, the postoperative complication rates, and median hospital stay duration after surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reduced port laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy may serve as an effective therapeutic option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, to establish the superiority of RPS over MPS, a prospective, randomized, controlled trial is warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11370075/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02545-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02545-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reduced port laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse.
Background: Laparoscopic rectopexy is an established treatment option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Recently, reduced port surgery (RPS) has emerged as a novel concept, offering reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes compared with conventional multiport surgery (MPS). This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of RPS for full-thickness rectal prolapse.
Methods: From October 2012 to December 2018, 37 patients (MPS: 10 cases, RPS: 27 cases) underwent laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy (Wells procedure) is the standard technique for full-thickness rectal prolapse at our hospital. RPS was performed using a multi-channel access device, with an additional 12-mm right-hand port. Short-term outcomes were retrospectively compared between MPS and RPS.
Results: No significant differences were observed between MPS and RPS in the median operative time, the median blood loss volume, the postoperative complication rates, and median hospital stay duration after surgery.
Conclusion: Reduced port laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy may serve as an effective therapeutic option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, to establish the superiority of RPS over MPS, a prospective, randomized, controlled trial is warranted.