1
|
Devane LA, Ranson SM, Bustamante-Lopez LA, Uwah MS, Kudish B, Kow N, Hoff JJ, Monson JRT, deBeche-Adams TCH. Combined Robotic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy and Sacrocolpopexy for Multicompartmental Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 2024; 67:286-290. [PMID: 37787607 DOI: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000003013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Multispecialty management should be the preferred approach for the treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction because there is often multicompartmental prolapse. OBJECTIVE To assess the safety of combined robotic ventral mesh rectopexy and either uterine or vaginal fixation for the treatment of multicompartmental pelvic organ prolapse at our institution. DESIGN Retrospective analysis. SETTINGS Tertiary referral academic center. PATIENTS All patients who underwent a robotic approach and combined procedure and whose cases were discussed at a biweekly pelvic floor multidisciplinary team meeting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Operative time, intraoperative blood loss and complications, postoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification score, length of stay, 30-day morbidity, and readmission. RESULTS From 2018 to 2021, there were 321 operations for patients with multicompartmental prolapse. The mean age was 63.4 years. The predominant pelvic floor dysfunction was rectal prolapse in 170 cases (60%). Pelvic organ prolapse quantification scores were II in 146 patients (53%), III in 121 patients (44%), and IV in 9 patients (3%); 315 of 323 cases included robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (98%). Sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy was performed in 281 patients (89%). Other procedures included 175 hysterectomies (54%), 104 oophorectomies (32%), 151 sling procedures (47%), 149 posterior repairs (46%), and 138 cystocele repairs (43%). The operative time for ventral mesh rectopexy was 211 minutes and for combined pelvic floor reconstruction was 266 minutes. Average length of stay was 1.6 days. Eight patients were readmitted within 30 days: 1 with a severe headache and 7 with postoperative complications (2.5%), such as pelvic collection and perirectal collection, both requiring radiologic drainage. Four complications required reoperation: epidural abscess, small-bowel obstruction, missed enterotomy requiring resection, and urinary retention requiring sling revision. There were no mortalities. LIMITATIONS Retrospective single-center study. CONCLUSIONS A combined robotic approach for multicompartmental pelvic organ prolapse is a safe and viable procedure with a relatively low rate of morbidity and no mortality. This is the highest volume series of combined robotic pelvic floor reconstruction in the literature and demonstrates a low complication rate and short length of stay. See Video Abstract . RECTOPEXIA Y SACROCOLPOPEXIA ROBTICA VENTRAL COMBINADAS CON MALLA PARA EL PROLAPSO DE RGANOS PLVICOS MULTICOMPARTIMENTALES ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento multiespecializado debe ser el enfoque preferido para el tratamiento de la disfunción del suelo pélvico, ya que a menudo hay prolapso multicompartimental.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la seguridad de la rectopexia robótica combinada con malla ventral y fijación uterina o vaginal para el tratamiento del prolapso multicompartimental de órganos pélvicos en nuestra institución.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Centro académico de referencia terciarioPACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a un enfoque robótico y un procedimiento combinado y se discutieron en una reunión quincenal del equipo multidisciplinario sobre el piso pélvico.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tiempo operatorio, pérdida de sangre intraoperatoria y complicaciones. Puntuación de cuantificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos posoperatorio, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, morbilidad a 30 días y reingreso.RESULTADOS:De 2018 a 2021, se realizaron 321 operaciones de pacientes con prolapso multicompartimental. La edad media fue 63.4 años. La disfunción del suelo pélvico predominante fue el prolapso rectal en 170 casos (60%). Las puntuaciones de cuantificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos fueron II en 146 pacientes (53%), III en 121 (44%) y IV en 9 (3%); 315 de los 323 casos incluyeron rectopexia robótica de malla ventral (98%). Se realizó sacrocolpopexia o sacrohisteropexia en 281 pacientes (89%). Otros procedimientos incluyeron 175 histerectomías (54%), 104 ooforectomías (32%), 151 procedimientos de cabestrillo (47%), 149 reparaciones posteriores (46%) y 138 reparaciones de cistocele (43%). El tiempo operatorio para la rectopexia con malla ventral fue de 211 minutos y la reconstrucción combinada del piso pélvico de 266 minutos. La estancia media fue de 1.6 días. Ocho pacientes reingresaron dentro de los 30 días, 1 con dolor de cabeza intenso y 7 pacientes con complicaciones posoperatorias (2.5%): colección pélvica y colección perirrectal, ambas requirieron drenaje radiológico. Cuatro complicaciones requirieron reoperación: absceso epidural, obstrucción del intestino delgado, enterotomía omitida que requirió resección y retención urinaria que requirió revisión del cabestrillo. No hubo mortalidades.LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo unicéntrico.CONCLUSIONES:Un enfoque robótico combinado para el prolapso multicompartimental de órganos pélvicos es un procedimiento seguro y viable con una tasa relativamente baja de morbilidad y ninguna mortalidad. Esta es la serie de mayor volumen de reconstrucción robótica combinada del suelo pélvico en la literatura y demuestra una baja tasa de complicaciones y una estancia hospitalaria corta. (Traducción-Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez )See Editorial on page 195.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liam A Devane
- Surgical Health Outcomes Consortium (SHOC), AdventHealth Medical Group Colorectal Surgery, Orlando, Florida
| | - Stacy M Ranson
- Surgical Health Outcomes Consortium (SHOC), AdventHealth Medical Group Colorectal Surgery, Orlando, Florida
| | | | - Martin Sunday Uwah
- Surgical Health Outcomes Consortium (SHOC), AdventHealth Medical Group Colorectal Surgery, Orlando, Florida
| | - Bela Kudish
- Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, AdventHealth Orlando, Florida
| | - Nathan Kow
- Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, AdventHealth Orlando, Florida
| | - John J Hoff
- Surgical Health Outcomes Consortium (SHOC), AdventHealth Medical Group Colorectal Surgery, Orlando, Florida
| | - John R T Monson
- Surgical Health Outcomes Consortium (SHOC), AdventHealth Medical Group Colorectal Surgery, Orlando, Florida
| | - Teresa C H deBeche-Adams
- Surgical Health Outcomes Consortium (SHOC), AdventHealth Medical Group Colorectal Surgery, Orlando, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Al-Nejar A, Van den Broeck S, Smets Q, Plaeke P, Spinhoven M, Hubens G, Komen N. Ventral mesh rectopexy. Does a descending perineum impact functional results and quality of life? Langenbecks Arch Surg 2024; 409:44. [PMID: 38240901 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-024-03236-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2023] [Accepted: 01/09/2024] [Indexed: 01/23/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE The impact of perineal descent (PD) on functional outcome and quality of life after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of PD on the functional outcome and quality of life (QOL) after VMR. METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed on fifty-five patients who underwent robotic VMR between 2018 and 2021. Pre and postoperative data along with radiological studies were gathered from a prospectively maintained database. The Cleveland Clinic Constipation score (CCCS), the Rome IV criteria and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), were used to measure functional results and QOL. RESULTS All 55 patients (mean age 57.8 years) were female. Most patients had radiological findings of severe PD (n = 31) as opposed to mild/moderate PD (n = 24). CCCS significantly improved at 3 months and 1 year post-VMR (mean difference = -4.4 and -5.4 respectively, p < 0.001) with no significant difference between the two groups. The percentage of functional constipation Rome IV criteria only showed an improved outcome at 3 months for severe PD and at 1 year for mild/moderate PD (difference = -58.1% and -54.2% respectively, p < 0.05). Only the SF-36 subscale bodily pain significantly improved in the mild/moderate PD group (mean difference = 16.7, p = 0.002) 3 months post-VMR which subsided after one year (mean difference = 5.5, p = 0.068). CONCLUSION Severe PD may impact the functional outcome of constipation without an evident effect on QOL after VMR. The results, however, remain inconclusive and further research is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ali Al-Nejar
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Drie Eikenstraat 655, 2650, Edegem, Belgium.
- Antwerp ReSURG, Antwerp Surgical Training, Anatomy and Research Centre (ASTARC), Edegem, Belgium.
| | - Sylvie Van den Broeck
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Drie Eikenstraat 655, 2650, Edegem, Belgium
- Antwerp ReSURG, Antwerp Surgical Training, Anatomy and Research Centre (ASTARC), Edegem, Belgium
| | - Quinten Smets
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Drie Eikenstraat 655, 2650, Edegem, Belgium
- Antwerp ReSURG, Antwerp Surgical Training, Anatomy and Research Centre (ASTARC), Edegem, Belgium
| | - Philip Plaeke
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Drie Eikenstraat 655, 2650, Edegem, Belgium
- Antwerp ReSURG, Antwerp Surgical Training, Anatomy and Research Centre (ASTARC), Edegem, Belgium
| | - Maarten Spinhoven
- Department of Radiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium
| | - Guy Hubens
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Drie Eikenstraat 655, 2650, Edegem, Belgium
- Antwerp ReSURG, Antwerp Surgical Training, Anatomy and Research Centre (ASTARC), Edegem, Belgium
- Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Niels Komen
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Drie Eikenstraat 655, 2650, Edegem, Belgium
- Antwerp ReSURG, Antwerp Surgical Training, Anatomy and Research Centre (ASTARC), Edegem, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zigiotto D, Sturiale A, Naldini G. Robotic Rectosigmoidopexy for Recurrent External Prolapse After Altemeier Procedure. Dis Colon Rectum 2023; 66:e1264. [PMID: 37646675 DOI: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000002932] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/01/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Daniele Zigiotto
- Department of General Surgery, San Bonifacio Hospital, ULSS 9 Scaligera, Verona, Italy
| | - Alessandro Sturiale
- Proctological and Perineal Surgical Unit, Cisanello University Hospital, Via Paradisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Gabriele Naldini
- Proctological and Perineal Surgical Unit, Cisanello University Hospital, Via Paradisa, Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Noh JJ, Jeon JE, Jung JH, Kim TJ. Feasibility and Surgical Outcomes of Hybrid Robotic Single-Site Hysterectomy Compared with Single-Port Access Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy. J Pers Med 2023; 13:1178. [PMID: 37511791 PMCID: PMC10382033 DOI: 10.3390/jpm13071178] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2023] [Revised: 07/19/2023] [Accepted: 07/20/2023] [Indexed: 07/30/2023] Open
Abstract
We compared surgical outcomes between single-port access total laparoscopic hysterectomy (SPA-TLH) and hybrid robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH), a new technique of combining the benefits of SPA-TLH with RSSH in this study. A total of 64 patients were retrospectively analyzed. They underwent either hybrid RSSH or SPA-TLH for benign gynecologic disease between December 2018 and August 2021. To assess the feasibility of hybrid RSSH, the clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between the hybrid RSSH group (n = 29) and the SPA-TLH group (n = 35). All of the surgeries were completed without requiring additional ports or conversion to laparotomy. The surgical outcomes including total operative time, uterine weight, estimated blood loss, hemoglobin changes, length of hospital stay, and postoperative pain scores were not significantly different between the two groups. The colpotomy time, including the detachment of the uterosacral and cardinal ligaments, was shorter in the hybrid RSSH group than in the SPA-TLH group (8.0 min vs. 14.0 min; p = 0.029). However, the vaginal cuff closure time was longer in the hybrid RSSH group than in the SPA-TLH group (15.0 min vs.10.0 min; p = 0.001). No difference was observed with regards to intraoperative and postoperative complications. Hybrid RSSH appears to be a feasible procedure for hysterectomy in patients with benign gynecologic diseases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph J Noh
- Gynecologic Cancer Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea
| | - Jung-Eun Jeon
- Gynecologic Cancer Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea
| | - Ji-Hee Jung
- Gynecologic Cancer Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea
| | - Tae-Joong Kim
- Gynecologic Cancer Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Driouch J, Thaher O, Brinkmann S, Bausch D, Glatz T. Robotic-assisted rectosigmoid resection rectopexy with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE): technical notes, short-term results, and functional outcome. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2023; 408:177. [PMID: 37140719 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-02918-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2023] [Accepted: 04/28/2023] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Rectosigmoid resection rectopexy has been established as an effective therapy for obstructive defecation syndrome. The addition of the NOSE-technique provides an even less invasive approach avoiding minilaparotomy, but can be technically challenging. Application of a robotic platform has been proposed to facilitate the specimen extraction and fashioning of the intracorporeal anastomosis and has been proven to be effective in left-sided colectomies. METHODS After establishing laparoscopic rectosigmoid-resection-rectopexy with NOSE, we modified our technique by addition of the robotic platform. Whenever robotic capacity was available, elective patients scheduled for rectosigmoid resection rectopexy for obstructive defecation syndrome were operated robotically assisted. Demographic and intraoperative data were prospectively collected. Follow up was assessed using the Wexner constipation score, Wexner incontinence score, and Altomare ODS score. RESULTS The NOSE-RRR technique was completed in all 31 patients. The mean operative time was 166 min (range 67-230). No conversion was required. The median hospital stay was 5 days (range 3-28). Four patients had minor complications (Clavien I). Two patients were reoperated (Clavien IIIb). Functional scores improved significantly postoperatively. Mean Wexner incontinence score was 7.1 preoperatively, 6.9 after 1 month, and decreased significantly to 3.93 after 3 months (p < 0.001). Mean Altomare ODS score was 17.47 preoperatively and 6.93/5.03 after 1/3 months (p < 0.001). Wexner constipation score (12.83) also showed a significant improvement after 1/3 months (6.97/6.67; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION NOSE-RRR can be performed safely with a low rate of manageable complications. The technique provides a significant improvement for ODS-Symptoms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamal Driouch
- Department of Surgery, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr University of Bochum, Hölkeskampring 40, 44625, Herne, Germany
- Department of Surgery, St. Elisabeth Hospital, Iserlohn, Germany
| | - Omar Thaher
- Department of Surgery, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr University of Bochum, Hölkeskampring 40, 44625, Herne, Germany
| | - Sebastian Brinkmann
- Department of Surgery, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr University of Bochum, Hölkeskampring 40, 44625, Herne, Germany
| | - Dirk Bausch
- Department of Surgery, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr University of Bochum, Hölkeskampring 40, 44625, Herne, Germany
| | - Torben Glatz
- Department of Surgery, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr University of Bochum, Hölkeskampring 40, 44625, Herne, Germany.
- Department of Surgery, Südharzklinikum Nordhausen, Nordhausen, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Simoncini T, Panattoni A, Aktas M, Ampe J, Betschart C, Bloemendaal ALA, Buse S, Campagna G, Caretto M, Cervigni M, Consten ECJ, Davila HH, Dubuisson J, Espin-Basany E, Fabiani B, Faucheron JL, Giannini A, Gurland B, Hahnloser D, Joukhadar R, Mannella P, Mereu L, Martellucci J, Meurette G, Montt Guevara MM, Ratto C, O'Reilly BA, Reisenauer C, Russo E, Schraffordt Koops S, Siddiqi S, Sturiale A, Naldini G. Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users. Surg Endosc 2023:10.1007/s00464-023-10001-4. [PMID: 36952046 PMCID: PMC10035464 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10001-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2022] [Accepted: 02/25/2023] [Indexed: 03/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion. METHODS We set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons' characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis. RESULTS The 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy. CONCLUSION Robotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tommaso Simoncini
- Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
| | - Andrea Panattoni
- Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Mustafa Aktas
- Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jozef Ampe
- Department of Urology, AZ Sint-Jan Bruges Hospitals, Brugge, Belgium
| | - Cornelia Betschart
- Department of Gynecology, University Hospital of Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - Stephan Buse
- Department of Urology and Urologic Oncology, Alfried Krupp Hospital, Essen, Germany
| | - Giuseppe Campagna
- Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Women and Child Health, University Hospital A. Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - Marta Caretto
- Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Mauro Cervigni
- Department of Urology, La Sapienza University-Polo Pontino ICOT, Latina, Italy
| | - Esther C J Consten
- Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort and Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Hugo H Davila
- Cleveland Clinic Indian River Hospital, Florida State University, College of Medicine, Tallahassee, FL, USA
| | - Jean Dubuisson
- Department of Pediatrics, Gynecology, and Obstetrics, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Eloy Espin-Basany
- Unidad de Cirugía Colorrectal, Servicio de Cirugía General, Hospital Valle de Hebron, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Bernardina Fabiani
- Proctology and Pelvic Floor Clinical Center, Cisanello University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| | - Jean-Luc Faucheron
- Colorectal Surgery Unit, Visceral Surgery and Acute Care Surgery Department, Grenoble Alps University Hospital, Grenoble, France
| | - Andrea Giannini
- Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Brooke Gurland
- Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Dieter Hahnloser
- Department of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Ralf Joukhadar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wuerzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Paolo Mannella
- Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Liliana Mereu
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cannizzaro Hospital, Catania, Italy
| | - Jacopo Martellucci
- Department of General, Emergency and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Guillaume Meurette
- Digestive and Endocrine Surgery Clinic, IMAD, CHU de Nantes, Hôtel Dieu, Nantes Cedex, France
| | - Maria Magdalena Montt Guevara
- Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Carlo Ratto
- Proctology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Barry A O'Reilly
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cork University Maternity Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | - Christl Reisenauer
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Eleonora Russo
- Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | | | | | - Alessandro Sturiale
- Proctology and Pelvic Floor Clinical Center, Cisanello University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| | - Gabriele Naldini
- Proctology and Pelvic Floor Clinical Center, Cisanello University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Marra AA, Campennì P, De Simone V, Parello A, Litta F, Ratto C. Technical modifications for cost optimization in robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy: an initial experience. Tech Coloproctol 2023:10.1007/s10151-023-02756-8. [PMID: 36802041 PMCID: PMC9938509 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-023-02756-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2022] [Accepted: 01/22/2023] [Indexed: 02/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is considered a valid option in the treatment of rectal prolapse. However, it involves higher costs than the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study is to determine if less expensive robotic surgery for rectal prolapse can be safely performed. METHODS This study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, from 7 November 2020 to 22 November 2021. The cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources in patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with the da Vinci Xi Surgical Systems was analyzed before and after technical modifications, including the reduction of robotic arms and instruments, and the execution of a double minimal peritoneal incision at the pouch of Douglas and sacral promontory (instead of the traditional inverted J incision). RESULTS Twenty-two robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were performed [21 females, 95.5%, median age 62.0 (54.8-70.0) years]. After an initial experience performing traditional robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in four patients, we adopted technical modifications in other cases. No major complication or conversion to open surgery occurred. In total, mean cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources was €6995.5 ± 1058.0, €5912.7 ± 877.0, €2797.6 ± 545.6, and €2608.3 ± 351.5, respectively. Technical modifications allowed a significant reduction in the overall cost of hospitalization (€6604.5 ± 589.5 versus €8755.0 ± 906.4, p = 0.001), number of robotic instruments (3.1 ± 0.2 versus 4.0 ± 0.8 units, p = 0.026), and operating room time (201 ± 26 versus 253 ± 16 min, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS Considering our preliminary results, robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with appropriate technical modifications can be cost-effective and safe.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A. A. Marra
- Proctology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - P. Campennì
- Proctology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - V. De Simone
- Proctology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - A. Parello
- Proctology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - F. Litta
- Proctology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - C. Ratto
- Proctology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168 Rome, Italy ,Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Zigiotto D, Sturiale A, Fabiani B, Fralleone L, Simoncini T, Naldini G. Robotic supracervical hysterectomy and colpo-procto-sacropexy with folded titanized polypropylene mesh for multicompartmental pelvic organ prolapse - a video-vignette. Colorectal Dis 2021; 23:2783. [PMID: 34260127 DOI: 10.1111/codi.15810] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2021] [Revised: 07/01/2021] [Accepted: 07/01/2021] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Daniele Zigiotto
- Proctological and Perineal Surgical Unit, Ospedale Civile Maggiore, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Alessandro Sturiale
- Proctological and Perineal Surgical Unit, Cisanello University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| | - Bernardina Fabiani
- Proctological and Perineal Surgical Unit, Cisanello University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| | - Lisa Fralleone
- Proctological and Perineal Surgical Unit, Cisanello University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| | - Tommaso Simoncini
- Proctological and Perineal Surgical Unit, Cisanello University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| | - Gabriele Naldini
- Proctological and Perineal Surgical Unit, Cisanello University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|