Background: Apart from an obviously better cosmetic situation, there is controversy on the actual benefit of laparoscopic and laparoscopically assisted techniques in restorative proctocolectomy. The need for a protective ileostomy remains unclear. Methods: Fifty-nine consecutive patients with ulcerative colitis and familial polyposis were included in this prospective cohort study. The colon was mobilized laparoscopically with a four-trocar technique, facilitating vascular dissection, rectal resection, and ileoanal pouch construction to be done through a Pfannenstiel incision. A protective ileostomy was constructed only in patients where the operation was difficult or where the anastomosis was under tension. Intra- and postoperative data were recorded; statistical analyses were performed by exact logistic regression. Results: Laparoscopic mobilisation was successful in 54 patients (91.2%). Two patients had to be primarily converted because of exceeding the set time limit; 3 other patients had to have an additional median laparotomy. These 5 patients all had an increased body mass index (BMI), which was a statistically significant risk factor for failure of the laparoscopic technique. 18.6% of patients developed major complications (n = 11). Nine patients required secondary ileostomies; all of them either were under high dose immunosuppressants (n = 5) or had an increased BMI (average 28.42 kg/m²). Failure of the laparoscopic technique was associated with major complications. Conclusion: Laparoscopically assisted restorative proctocolectomy is technically feasible; an increased BMI is a relevant risk factor for failure. The minimally invasive approach probably does not reduce the need for a protective ileostomy in selected patients. The selection criteria for the addition of omission of a protective ileostomy in minimally invasive restorative proctocolectomy remain to be clearly defined.