Robot-Assisted vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: A Comparative Study on Costs and Time.

J.W.M. Heemskerk*, D.E. de Hoog, W.G. van Gemert, C.G. Baeten, J.W. Greve, N.D. Bouvy

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


PURPOSE: Laparoscopic 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. METHODS: Our first 14 cases of robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy were reviewed and compared with 19 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic rectopexy in the same period. RESULTS: Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy did not show more complications. However, the average operating time was 39 minutes longer, and costs were <euro>557.29 (or: $745.09) higher. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure but results in increased time and higher costs than conventional laparoscopy. AD - Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Hospital, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1825-1830
JournalDiseases of the Colon & Rectum
Issue number11
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2007


Dive into the research topics of 'Robot-Assisted vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: A Comparative Study on Costs and Time.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this