PurposeLaparoscopic 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.MethodsOur first 14 cases of robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy were reviewed and compared with 19 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic rectopexy in the same period.ResultsRobot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy did not show more complications. However, the average operating time was 39 minutes longer, and costs were -57.29 (or: $745.09) higher.ConclusionRobot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure but results in increased time and higher costs than conventional laparoscopy.

Purpose This study was designed to evaluate recurrence and functional outcome of three surgical techniques for rectopexy: open (OR), laparoscopic (LR), and robot-assisted (RR). A case-control study was performed to study recurrence after the three operative techniques used for rectal procidentia. The secondary aim of this study was to examine the differences in functional results between the three techniques. Materials and methods All consecutive patients who underwent a rectopexy between January 2000 and September 2006 enrolled in this study. Peri-operative data were collected from patient records and functional outcome was assessed by telephonic questionnaire. Results Eighty-two patients (71 females, mean age 56.4 years) underwent a rectopexy for rectal procidentia. Nine patients (11%) had a recurrence; one (2%) after OR, four (27%) after LR, and four (20%) after RR. RR showed significantly higher recurrence rates when controlled for age and follow-up time compared to OR, (p=0.027), while LR showed nearsignificant higher rates (p=0.059). Functional results improved in all three operation types, without a difference between them. Conclusions LR and RR are adequate procedures but have a higher risk of recurrence. A RCT is needed assessing the definitive role of (robotic assistance in) laparoscopic surgery in rectopexy.