Is robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy superior to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the management of obstructed defaecation?

Could robotic-assisted surgery reduce mesh-related complications after ventral mesh rectopexy? Experience of a tertiary centre and systematic review of the literature

AIM

The development of robotic assistance has made dissection and suturing in the deep pelvis much easier. The augmented quality of the images and the articulation of the robotic arms have also enabled a more precise dissection. The aim of this study is to present the data on robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy procedures in a university hospital and examine the literature in terms of mesh erosion.

METHOD

The electronic databases Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane were searched. Studies from January 2004 until January 2023 in the English language were included. Studies which included fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were included. Mesh erosion rates following laparoscopic or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were measured.

RESULTS

Overall, the systematic review presents 5911 patients from 43 studies who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compared with 746 patients treated with robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy from six studies and our centre. Mesh erosion was rare in both groups; however, the prevalence was greater in the laparoscopy group (0.90% vs. 0.27%).

CONCLUSION

The mesh erosion rates are very low with robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy. For precise results, more studies and experience in robotic surgery are required.

Ventral mesh rectopexy. Does a descending perineum impact functional results and quality of life?

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.

Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series

Introduction: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is the standard procedure for the treatment of posterior pelvic organ prolapse. Despite significant functional improvement and anatomical corrections, severe complications related to mesh augmentation can occur in a few proportions of patients. In order to decrease the number of rare but severe complications, we developed a variant of the conventional VMR without any rectal fixation and using a robotic approach with biological mesh. The aim of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with synthetic mesh (LVMRS) to those of robotic ventral rectopexy with biological mesh (RVMRB). Methods: Between 2004 and 2021, patients operated on for VMR in our unit were identified and separated into two groups: LVMRS and RVMRB. The surgical technique for both groups consisted of VMR without any rectal fixation, with mesh distally secured on the levator ani muscles. Results: 269 patients with a mean age of 62 years were operated for posterior pelvic floor disorder: rectocele (61.7%) and external rectal prolapse (34.6%). 222 (82.5%) patients received LVMRS (2004-2015), whereas 47 were operated with RVMRB (2015-2021). Both groups slightly differed for combined anterior fixation proportion (LVMRS 39% vs. RVMRB 6.4%, p < 0.001). Despite these differences, the length of stay was shorter in the RVMRB group (2 vs. 3 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative complications were comparable in the two groups (1.8 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.089) and mainly consisted of minor complications. Functional outcomes were favorable and similar in both groups, with an improvement in bulging, obstructed defecation symptoms, and fecal incontinence (NS in subgroup analysis). In the long term, there were no mesh erosions reported. The overall recurrence rate was 11.9%, and was comparable in the two groups (13% LVMRS vs. 8.5, p = 0.43). Conclusions: VMR without rectal fixation is a safe and effective approach in posterior organ prolapse management. RVMRB provides comparable results in terms of recurrence and functional results, with avoidance of unabsorbable material implantation.

Is robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for pelvic floor disorders better than laparoscopic approach at the beginning of the experience? A retrospective single-center study

PURPOSE

To compare perioperative results of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for pelvic floor disorders at the beginning of the surgical experience.

METHODS

Between 2017 and 2022, the first 30 laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexies and the first 30 robotic ventral mesh rectopexies at the beginning of the experience of 2 surgeons were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative (demographic characteristics, surgical indication, conversion rate, operative time), and postoperative (complications, length of stay, unplanned reintervention) data were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. Conversion rate was lower (0 vs 17%, p = 0.05), but the operative time was significantly longer (182 [146-290] vs 150 [75-240] minutes, p < 0.0001) during robotic procedure when compared with laparoscopic approach. In terms of learning curve, the number of procedures to obtain the same operative time between the 2 approaches was 15. Postoperative results were similar between groups, in terms of pain (visual analogic scale = 2 [0-8] vs 4 [0-9], p = 0.07), morbidity (17 vs 3%, p = 0.2), and unplanned reintervention (1 vs 0%, p = 0.99). Mean length of stay was significantly reduced after robotic approach when compared with laparoscopic approach (3 [2-10] vs 5 [2-11] days, p < 0.01). Functional results were better after robotic than laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, with higher satisfaction rate (93 vs 75%, p = 0.05), and reduced recurrence rate (0 vs 14%, p = 0.048).

CONCLUSION

Despite longer operative time at the beginning of the learning curve, robotic ventral mesh rectopexy was associated with similar or better perioperative results than laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

Modified robotic ventral rectopexy with folded single titanized mesh suspension for the treatment of complex pelvic organ prolapse

AIM

The incidence of complex pelvic organ prolapse in female patients is about 38%, and this disorder entails social and sexual restrictions. Treatment for this disorder is complex because it can enhance other, latent, problems. The aim of the present study is to describe a new robotic-assisted technique to simultaneously treat prolapses of different compartments with the use of a single titanized polypropylene mesh.

METHOD

All patients referred from January 2018 to March 2019 to the Proctologic and Pelvic Floor Clinical Centre who were affected by complex pelvic organ prolapse underwent modified robotic ventral rectopexy with a folded single mesh (RVR-FSM). The anatomical and functional outcomes were respectively evaluated using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) grading system and Wexner scores of constipation and incontinence. The satisfaction rate was investigated using a five-point scale (1 = not satisfied to 5 = extremely satisfied).

RESULTS

Twenty-two women underwent RVR-FSM with a homogeneous follow-up of 12 months. The mean total operation time was 148 min, without any robot-related or other intraoperative complications. No mesh-related complications occurred. The POP-Q grade improved for every patient, with complete resolution of bulging symptoms in 21 patients (95.4%) at 1 year of follow-up. The Wexner constipation score showed a significant improvement, while the incontinence score slightly improved at 1 year after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The use of a single mesh that can be folded was shown to provide significant improvement in functional and anatomical results associated with patient satisfaction. The robotic approach allows surgeons to perform an easier procedure with correct and deep mesh fixation.

Technical modifications for cost optimization in robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy: an initial experience

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.

Tunneling of Mesh during Ventral Rectopexy: Technical Aspects and Long-Term Functional Results

Avoiding the extensive damage of pelvic structures during ventral rectopexy could minimize secondary disfunctions. The objective of our observational study is to assess the safety and functional efficacy of a modified ventral rectopexy. In the modified ventral rectopexy, a retroperitoneal tunnel was created along the right side of rectum, connecting two peritoneal mini-incisions at the Douglas pouch and sacral promontory. The proximal edge of a polypropylene mesh, sutured over the ventral rectum, was pulled up through the retroperitoneal tunnel and fixed to the sacral promontory. In all patients, radiopaque clips were placed on the mesh, making it radiographically "visible". Before surgery and at follow up visits, Altomare, Longo, CCSS, PAC-SYM, and CCFI scores were collected. From March 2010 to September 2021, 117 patients underwent VR. Modified ventral rectopexy was performed in 65 patients, while the standard ventral rectopexy was performed in 52 patients. The open approach was used in 97 cases (55 and 42 patients in modified and standard VR, respectively), while MI surgery was used in 20 cases (10 and 10 patients in modified and standard VR, respectively). A slightly shorter operative time and hospital stay were observed following modified ventral rectopexy (though this was not statistically significant). Similar overall complication rates were registered in the modified vs. standard ventral rectopexies (4.6% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.779). At follow-up, the Longo score (14.0 ± 8.6 vs. 11.0 ± 8.2, p = 0.042) and "delta" values of Altomare (9.2 ± 6.1 vs. 5.9 ± 6.3, p = 0.008) and CCSS (8.4 ± 6.3 vs. 6.1 ± 6.1, p = 0.037) scores were significantly improved in the modified ventral rectopexy group. A similar occurrence of symptoms recurrence was diagnosed in the two groups. Radiopaque clips helped to accurately diagnose mesh detachment/dislocation. The proposed modified VR seems to be feasible and safe. Marking the mesh intraoperatively seems useful.

Stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in adults with chronic constipation

Background

The effectiveness of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) in patients with defecatory disorders secondary to internal rectal prolapse is poorly evidenced. A UK-based multicenter randomized controlled trial was designed to determine the clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls at medium-term follow-up.

Methods

The randomized controlled trial was conducted from March 1, 2015 TO January 31, 2019. A stepped-wedge RCT design permitted observer-masked data comparisons between patients awaiting LVMR (controls) with those who had undergone surgery. Adult participants with radiologically confirmed IRP refractory to conservative treatment were randomized to three arms with different delays before surgery. Efficacy outcome data were collected at equally stepped time points (12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 weeks). Clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls was defined as ≥ 1.0-point reduction in Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life and/or Symptoms (PAC-QOL and/or PAC-SYM) scores at 24 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included 14-day diary data, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), St Marks incontinence score, the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), the chronic constipation Behavioral Response to Illness Questionnaire (CC-BRQ), and the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ).

Results

Of a calculated sample size of 114, only 28 patients (100% female) were randomized from 6 institutions (due mainly to national pause on mesh-related surgery). Nine were assigned to the T0 arm, 10 to T12, and 9 to T24. There were no substantial differences in baseline characteristics between the three arms. Compared to baseline, significant reduction (improvement) in PAC-QOL and PAC-SYM scores were observed at 24 weeks post-surgery (– 1.09 [95% CI – 1.76, – 0.41], p = 0.0019, and – 0.92 [– 1.52, – 0.32], p = 0.0029, respectively) in the 19 patients available for analysis (9 were excluded for dropout [n = 2] or missing primary outcome [n = 7]). There was a clinically significant long-term reduction in PAC-QOL scores (− 1.38 [− 2.94, 0.19], p = 0.0840 at 72 weeks). Statistically significant improvements in PAC-SYM scores persisted to 72 weeks (− 1.51 [− 2.87, − 0.16], p = 0.0289). Compared to baseline, no differences were found in secondary outcomes, except for significant improvements at 24 and 48 weeks on CC-BRQ avoidance behavior (− 14.3 [95% CI − 23.3, − 5.4], and − 0.92 [− 1.52, − 0.32], respectively), CC-BRQ safety behavior (− 13.7 [95% CI − 20.5, − 7.0], and − 13.0 [− 19.8, − 6.1], respectively), and BIPQ negative perceptions (− 16.3 [95% CI − 23.5, − 9.0], and − 10.5 [− 17.9, − 3.2], respectively).

Conclusions

With the caveat of under-powering due to poor recruitment, the study presents the first randomized trial evidence of short-term benefit of LVMR for internal rectal prolapse.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN11747152).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10151-022-02633-w.

The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdominal adhesions are a risk factor for conversion to open surgery. An advantage of robotic surgery is the lower rate of unplanned conversions. A systematic review was conducted using the terms “laparoscopic” and “robotic”. Inclusion criteria were: comparative studies evaluating patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery; reporting data on conversion to open surgery for each group due to adhesions and studies including at least five patients in each group. The main outcomes were the conversion rates due to adhesions and surgeons’ expertise (novice vs. expert). The meta-analysis included 70 studies from different surgical specialities with 14,329 procedures (6472 robotic and 7857 laparoscopic). The robotic approach was associated with a reduced risk of conversion (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12–2.10, p = 0.007). The analysis of the procedures performed by “expert surgeons” showed a statistically significant difference in favour of robotic surgery (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03–2.12, p = 0.03). A reduced conversion rate due to adhesions with the robotic approach was observed in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.20–5.72, p = 0.02). The robotic approach could be a valid option in patients with abdominal adhesions, especially in the subgroup of those undergoing colorectal cancer resection performed by expert surgeons.

Mesh-related complications and recurrence after ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic versus biologic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely accepted surgical treatment for rectal prolapse. Both synthetic and biologic mesh are used. No consensus exists on the preferred type of mesh material. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish an overview of the current literature on mesh-related complications and recurrence after VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh to aid evidence-based decision making in preferred mesh material.

METHODS

A systematic search of the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane was performed (from inception until September 2020). Studies evaluating patients who underwent VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh were eligible. The MINORS score was used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were eligible after qualitative assessment. Eleven studies reported on mesh-related complications including 4001 patients treated with synthetic mesh and 762 treated with biologic mesh. The incidence of mesh-related complications ranged between 0 and 2.4% after synthetic versus 0-0.7% after biologic VMR. Synthetic mesh studies showed a pooled incidence of mesh-related complications of 1.0% (95% CI 0.5-1.7). Data of biologic mesh studies could not be pooled. Twenty-nine studies reported on the risk of recurrence in 2371 synthetic mesh patients and 602 biologic mesh patients. The risk of recurrence varied between 1.1 and 18.8% for synthetic VMR versus 0-15.4% for biologic VMR. Cumulative incidence of recurrence was found to be 6.1% (95% CI 4.3-8.1) and 5.8% (95% CI 2.9-9.6), respectively. The clinical and statistical heterogeneity was high.

CONCLUSIONS

No definitive conclusions on preferred mesh type can be made due to the quality of the included studies with high heterogeneity amongst them.

Mid-term functional and quality of life outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: multicenter comparative matched-pair analyses

Background

The aim of this study was to compare patients’ mid-term functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes following robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR).

Methods

The data of consecutive female patients who underwent minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy for external or symptomatic internal rectal prolapse at 3 hospitals in Finland between January 2011 and December 2016 were retrospectively collected. Patients were matched by age and diagnosis at a 1:1 ratio. A disease-related symptom questionnaire was sent to all living patients at follow-up in July 2018.

Results

After a total of 401 patients (RVMR, n = 187; LVMR, n = 214) were matched, 152 patients in each group were included in the final analyses. The median follow-up times were 3.3 (range 1.6–7.4) years and 3.0 (range 1.6–7.6) years for the RVMR and LVMR groups, respectively. The postoperative QoL measures did not differ between the groups. Compared with the LVMR group, the RVMR group had lower postoperative Wexner Incontinence Score (median 5 vs. median 8; p < 0.001), experienced significant ongoing incontinence symptoms less often (30.6% vs. 49.0%; p < 0.001) and reported less postoperative faecal incontinence discomfort evaluated with the visual analogue scale (median 11 vs. median 39; p = 0.005). RVMR patients had a shorter hospital stay (2.2 days vs. 3.8 days; p < 0.001) but experienced more frequent de novo pelvic pain (31.8% vs. 11.8%; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

RVMR and LVMR patients had equal functional and QoL outcomes. Those who underwent RVMR had lower mid-term anal incontinence symptom scores but suffered more frequent de novo pelvic pain.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10151-021-02563-z.

European Society of Coloproctology guidance on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery

This is a comprehensive and rigorous review of currently available data on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery. This guideline outlines the limitations of available data and the challenges of interpretation, followed by best possible recommendations.

Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Ventral mesh rectopexy is frequently performed as a means of improving the quality of life for sufferers of rectal prolapse. The minimally invasive approach is highly desirable but can be technically difficult to achieve in the narrow confines of the pelvis. The robotic platform is becoming a more common means of overcoming these difficulties, but evidence of an objective benefit over standard laparoscopy is scarce. This study seeks to review and analyse the data comparing outcomes after robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for papers comparing robotic to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Comparable data was pooled for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Six studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Sample sizes were relatively small, and only two of the studies were randomised. Pooled analysis was possible for data on operating time, complication rates, conversion rates and length of stay in hospital. This showed a non-significant trend towards longer operating times and a statistically significant reduction in length of stay after robotic procedures. There was no significant difference in complication and conversion rates.

CONCLUSION

The frequent finding of longer operating time for robotic surgery was not confirmed in this study. Shorter length of stay in hospital was seen, with other post-operative outcomes showing no significant difference. More data is needed with cost-benefit analyses to show whether the robotic platform is justified.

Meta-analysis on current status, efficacy, and safety of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse treatment: can robotic surgery become the gold standard?

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted surgery and robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy are gaining attention in the treatment of rectal prolapse and increased positive findings are proposed. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is comparable with the conventional laparoscopic approach surgery.

METHODS

Five major databases (PubMed, Sciencedirect, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched for eligible studies. Observational studies of the effect and safety of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic approaches on ventral mesh rectopexy were included. Odd ratios (OR) and weight mean difference (WMD) were used for dichotomous data and continuous data analysis. Clinical outcomes, functional outcomes, and cost-effectiveness data were extracted for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Compared to the laparoscopic approach, a significant shorter length of hospital stay (LOS), lesser intraoperative blood loss, and lower post-operative complication rate of RVMR group were observed. However, operation time of RVMR was significant increased. The expense of RVMR was higher than LVMR; mean Wexner scores and fecal incontinence were lower in RVMR group while there were no statistical differences.

CONCLUSION

The result of the current analysis revealed that the robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is effective and feasible in the treatment of rectal prolapse. However, long-term follow-up and results are needed for the promotion of this approach. There is a long way for robotic-assisted surgery to become a gold standard in rectal surgery.

Update on Robotic Rectal Prolapse Treatment

Rectal prolapse is a condition that can cause significant social impairment and negatively affects quality of life. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, with the aim of restoring the anatomy and correcting the associated functional disorders. During recent decades, laparoscopic abdominal procedures have emerged as effective tools for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with the advantages of faster recovery, lower morbidity, and shorter length of stay. Robotic surgery represents the latest evolution in the field of minimally invasive surgery, with the benefits of enhanced dexterity in deep narrow fields such as the pelvis, and may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal prolapse is feasible and safe. It could reduce complication rates and length of hospital stay, as well as shorten the learning curve, when compared to conventional laparoscopy. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required on long-term functional outcomes and recurrence rates.

Suture rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for complete full-thickness rectal prolapse and intussusception: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare recurrence rates of rectal prolapse following ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and suture rectopexy (SR).

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on the recurrence rates of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) or intussusception (IS) after SR and VMR. Results were pooled and procedures compared; a subgroup analysis was performed comparing patients with CRP and IS who underwent VMR using biological versus synthetic meshes. A meta-analysis of studies comparing SR and VMR was undertaken. The Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies score, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to assess the quality of studies.

Results

Twenty-two studies with 976 patients were included in the SR group and 31 studies with 1605 patients in the VMR group; among these studies, five were eligible for meta-analysis. Overall, in patients with CRP, the recurrence rate was 8.6 per cent after SR and 3.7 per cent after VMR (P < 0.001). However, in patients with IS treated using VMR, the recurrence rate was 9.7 per cent. Recurrence rates after VMR did not differ with use of biological or synthetic mesh in patients treated for CRP (4.1 versus 3.6 per cent; P = 0.789) and or IS (11.4 versus 11.0 per cent; P = 0.902). Results from the meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity, and the difference in recurrence rates between SR and VMR groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.76).

Conclusion

Although the systematic review showed a higher recurrence rate after SR than VMR for treatment of CRP, this result was not confirmed by meta-analysis. Therefore, robust RCTs comparing SR and biological VMR are required.

Advantages of robotic surgery in the treatment of complex pelvic organs prolapse

Robot-assisted surgery is safe and effective to treat the complex pelvic organs prolapse (C-POP). The present study analyzes all the robotic procedures and their advantages in the treatment of C-POP performed in a Proctologic and Pelvic Floor Clinical Centre. All the patients affected by C-POP who had robot-assisted surgery were retrospective analyzed. The anatomical and functional outcomes were respectively evaluated through POP-Q grading system and Wexner score about constipation and incontinence. The satisfaction rate was investigated using a five-point scale. From September 2014 to December 2018, 229 women underwent robotic surgery. The follow-up was 12 months. There were no robot-related complications. One hematoma (4.5%) of the recto-vaginal space occurred after Robotic Ventral Rectopexy with Folded Mesh (R-VRP-FM). In the robotic assisted lateral suspension (R-ALS) group there was one case of anterior vaginal wall mesh exposure (0.9%). After the robotic ventral rectopexy (R-VRP) the recurrence rate of external rectal prolapse, internal rectal prolapse, rectocele and enterocele was respectively 6.6, 9.5, 7.4 and 9.5%. After R-VRP-FM only one cystocele (14%) and one partial rectal prolapse (25%) recurred. Vaginal bulge symptoms resolution rate was 95.4%. The mean Wexner constipation score significantly decreased after R-VRP and R-VRP-FM. Vaginal bulge symptoms improved in 98.3% of cases with any apical prolapse recurrence after robotic abdominal colposacropexy. Success rate after R-ALS was 99.1% and 96.4% for apical and anterior prolapse respectively. Robotic assistance makes some surgical steps easier and more precise and this may result in less morbidity and better results.

Restored pelvic anatomy is preserved after laparoscopic and robot-assisted ventral rectopexy: MRI-based 5-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

AIM

Our aim was to compare the long-term anatomical outcomes between robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for external or internal rectal prolapse.

METHOD

This study is a follow-up of a single-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT). Thirty patients were randomly allocated to RVMR (n = 16) or LVMR (n = 14). The primary end-point was maintenance of the restored pelvic anatomy 5 years after the operation, as assessed by magnetic resonance (MR) defaecography. Secondary outcome measures included the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) measures and functional results assessed using symptom questionnaires.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients (14 RVMR and 12 LVMR) completed the 5-year follow-up and were included in the study. The MRI results, POP-Q measurements and symptom-specific quality of life measures did not differ between the RVMR and LVMR groups. The MRI measurements of the total study population remained unchanged between 3 months and 5 years. In the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), the RVMR group had lower symptom scores (mean 96.0, SD 70.7) than the LVMR group (mean 160.6, SD 58.9; P = 0.004). In the subscales of pelvic organ prolapse (POPDI-6) (mean 23.2, SD 24.3 vs mean 52.4, SD 22.4; P = 0.001) and the Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) (mean 38.4, SD 23.3 vs mean 58.6, SD 25.4; P = 0.009), the patients in the RVMR group had significantly better outcomes.

CONCLUSION

After VMR, the corrected anatomy was preserved. There were no clinically significant differences in anatomical results between the RVMR and LVMR procedures 5 years after surgery based on MR defaecography. However, functional outcomes were better after RMVR.

Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives

Purpose

As robotic surgery is increasingly performed in patients with colorectal diseases, understanding proper port placement for robotic colorectal surgery is necessary. This review summarizes current port placement during robotic surgery for colorectal diseases and provides future perspective on port placements.

Methods

PubMed were searched from January 2009 to December 2018 using a combination of the search terms “robotic” [MeSH], “colon” [MeSH], “rectum” [MeSH], “colorectal” [MeSH], and “colorectal surgery” [MeSH]. Studies related to port placement were identified and included in the current study if they used the da Vinci S, Si, or Xi robotic system and if they described port placement.

Results

This review included 77 studies including a total of 3,145 operations. Fifty studies described port placement for left-sided and mesorectal excision; 17, 3, and 7 studies assessed port placement for right-sided colectomy, rectopexy, transanal surgery, respectively; and one study assessed surgery with reduced port placement. Recent literatures show that the single-docking technique included mobilization of the second and third robotic arms for the different parts without movement of patient cart and similar to previous dual or triple-docking technique. Besides, use of the da Vinci Xi system allowed a more simplified port configuration.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted colorectal surgery can be efficiently achieved with successful port placement without movement of patient cart dependent on the type of surgery and the robotic system.

A novel hybrid 3D endoscope zooming and repositioning system: Design and feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Manipulation of the endoscope during minimally invasive surgery is a major source of inconvenience and discomfort. This report elucidates the architecture of a novel one-hand controlled endoscope positioning device and presents a practicability evaluation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Setup time and total surgery time, number and duration of the manipulations, side effects of three-dimensional (3D) imaging, and ergonomic complaints were assessed by three surgeons during cadaveric and in vivo porcine trials.

RESULTS

Setup was accomplished in an average (SD) of 230 (120) seconds. The manipulation time was 3.87 (1.77) seconds for angular movements and 0.83 (0.24) seconds for zooming, with an average (SD) of 30.5 (16.3) manipulations per procedure. No side effects of 3D imaging or ergonomic complaints were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of an active zoom into a passive endoscope holder delivers a convenient synergy between a human and a machine-controlled holding device. It is shown to be safe, simple, and intuitive to use and allows unrestrained autonomic control of the endoscope by the surgeon.

Robotic vs. laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is a treatment with promising results in external rectal prolapse, rectal intussusception, and rectocele. Because of the emergence of robotic-assisted surgery and the technical advantage it provides, we examined the potential role and place of robotic surgery in ventral rectopexy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed, and other databases were searched, by two independent reviewers, to identify studies comparing robotic to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. The primary outcome was the rate of unplanned conversion to open. The secondary outcomes were morbidity, length of hospital stay and recurrence rate.

RESULTS

Five studies (4% male, n = 259) met the inclusion criteria. All 5 studies reported on conversion rate and showed no significant difference between the conversion rate of robotic and laparoscopic groups [OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.09-3.77)]. Robotic surgery was also similar to laparoscopic surgery for both morbidity [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.34-1.48)] and recurrence rate [OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-1.75)]. Operative time was longer in the robotic group with a MWD of 22.88 minutes (CI 5.73-40.04, p < 0.0007). There was a statistically significant reduction in length of stay with robotic surgery [mean difference - 0.36 days (95% CI - 0.66 to - 0.07)].

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review shows that robotic-assisted ventral rectopexy requires longer operative time with no significant added benefit over laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. The conversion rate was low in both groups and the trends to benefit did not reach statistical significance. More studies are required to clarify whether the potential technical advantage of robotic surgery in ventral rectopexy translates to an improvement in clinical outcome.

Long-term outcomes of robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays in Europe, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is the gold standard treatment of external rectal prolapse (ERP). The benefits of robot ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) are not clearly defined. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the long-term results of RVMR. The secondary objective was to determine predictive factors of recurrence.

DESIGN

Monocentric, retrospective study. Data, both pre-operative and peri-operative, were collected, and follow-up data were assessed prospectively by a telephone questionnaire. The study was performed in a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

Between August 2007 and August 2017, we evaluate all consecutive patients who underwent RVMR for ERP by three different surgeons. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate perceived by patients. Secondary outcome were functional results based on Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom score for constipation and Wexner score for incontinence, compared before and after surgery.

RESULTS

During the study period 96 patients (86 women) underwent RVMR. The mean age was 62.3 years (range 16-90). Twelve patients had a history of ERP repair. Sixty-nine patients were analyzed for long-term outcomes with a mean follow-up of 37 months (range 2.3-92 months). Recurrence rate was 12.5%. After surgery, constipation was significantly reduced: 44 patients were constipated before surgery versus 23 after surgery. Six patients described de novo constipation (6.25%). Fecal incontinence was significantly reduced: 59 patients were incontinent before surgery versus 14 after surgery. No predictive factor for recurrence was identified after multivariate analysis. No mesh related complications were related.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, RVMR presents good long-term functional result and a recurrence rate similar to LVMR as published in the literature. The rate of mesh related complications seems lower.

Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial

Background

The aim of this study was to assess, whether robotic-assistance in ventral mesh rectopexy adds benefit to laparoscopy in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cost-effectiveness and anatomical and functional outcome.

Methods

A prospective randomized study was conducted on patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for internal or external rectal prolapse at Oulu University Hospital, Finland, recruited in February–May 2012. The primary outcomes were health care costs from the hospital perspective and HRQoL measured by the 15D-instrument. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome assessed by pelvic organ prolapse quantification method and functional outcome by symptom questionnaires at 24 months follow-up.

Results

There were 30 females (mean age 62.5 years, SD 11.2), 16 in the RVMR group and 14 in the LVMR group. The surgery-related costs of the RVMR were 1.5 times higher than the cost of the LVMR. At 3 months the changes in HRQoL were ‘much better’ (RVMR) and ‘slightly better’ (LVMR) but declined in both groups at 2 years (RVMR vs. LVMR, p > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness was poor at 2 years for both techniques, but if the outcomes were assumed to last for 5 years, it improved significantly. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the RVMR compared to LVMR was €39,982/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 2 years and improved to €16,707/QALYs at 5 years. Posterior wall anatomy was restored similarly in both groups. The subjective satisfaction rate was 87% in the RVMR group and 69% in the LVMR group (p = 0.83).

Conclusions

Although more expensive than LVMR in the short term, RVMR is cost-effective in long-term. The minimally invasive VMR improves pelvic floor function, sexual function and restores posterior compartment anatomy. The effect on HRQoL is minor, with no differences between techniques.

The role of robotics in colorectal surgery

Robotic surgery is safe and feasible offering many potential advantages to the colorectal surgeon.

Early experience with ambulatory robotic ventral rectopexy

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

Ventral rectopexy can be performed robotically with only limited trauma for the patient, making its performance in an ambulatory setting potentially interesting. The aim of this study is to report our preliminary experience with ambulatory robotic ventral rectopexy in consecutive patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ten consecutive patients underwent robotic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse (n=8) or symptomatic enterocele (n=2) between February 2014 and April 2015. Patients were selected for outpatient treatment based on criteria of patient motivation, favorable social conditions, and satisfactory general condition. Patient characteristics, technical results and cost were reported.

RESULTS

The mean operating time was 94minutes (range: 78-150). The average operating room occupancy time was 254minutes (222-339). There were no operative complications, conversion to laparotomy, or postoperative complication. The average duration of hospital stay was 11 (8-32) hours. Two patients required hospitalization: one for persistent pain and the other for urinary retention. The average maximum pain score recorded on postoperative day 1 was 2/10 on a visual analog scale (range: 0-5/10). Estimated average cost (excluding amortization of the purchase of the robot) was €9088 per procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory management of robotic ventral rectopexy is feasible and safe.

Does Ventral Rectopexy Improve Pelvic Floor Function in the Long Term?

BACKGROUND

Information is needed on long-term functional results, sequelas, and outcome predictors for laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term function postventral rectopexy in patients with external rectal prolapse or internal rectal prolapse in a large cohort and to identify the possible effects of patient-related factors and operative technical details on patient-reported outcomes.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review with a cross-sectional questionnaire study.

SETTINGS

Data were collated from prospectively collected registries in 2 university and 2 central hospitals in Finland.

PATIENTS

All 508 consecutive patients treated with ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse or symptomatic internal rectal prolapse in 2005 to 2013 were included.

INTERVENTIONS

A questionnaire concerning disease-related symptoms and effect on quality of life was used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Defecatory function measured by the Wexner score, the obstructive defecation score, and subjective symptom and quality-of-life evaluation using the visual analog scale were included. The effects of patient-related factors and operative technical details were assessed using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The questionnaire response rate was 70.7% (330/467 living patients) with a median follow-up time of 44 months. The mean Wexner scores were 7.0 (SD = 6.1) and 6.9 (SD = 5.6), and the mean obstructive defecation scores were 9.7 (SD = 7.6) and 12.3 (SD = 8.0) for patients presenting with external rectal prolapse and internal rectal prolapse. Subjective symptom relief was experienced by 76% and reported more often by patients with external rectal prolapse than with internal rectal prolapse (86% vs 68%; p < 0.001). Complications occurred in 11.4% of patients, and the recurrence rate for rectal prolapse was 7.1%.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its lack of preoperative functional data and suboptimal questionnaire response rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Ventral mesh rectopexy effectively treats posterior pelvic floor dysfunction with a low complication rate and an acceptable recurrence rate. Patients with external rectal prolapse benefit more from the operation than those with symptomatic internal rectal prolapse. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A479.

Robotic ventral rectopexy: Initial experience in an Indian tertiary health-care centre and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive ventral rectopexy is a well-described technique for management of rectal prolapse. Robotic system has proven its advantage for surgeries in the pelvis. Applying this technique, ventral rectopexy can be done more precisely with minimal recurrence. With growing experience, the operative duration and cost of robotic ventral rectopexy can be reduced with better outcome. Few case studies have been described in literature with no study from Indian subcontinent. We describe a series of eight cases of robotic ventral rectopexy done for rectal prolapse in a tertiary health-care centre of India.

METHODS

A total of 8 patients were operated for complete rectal prolapse during the period from August 2015 to April 2016. da Vinci Si robotic surgical system was used with prolene or permacol mesh for ventral rectopexy. All patients were prospectively followed for a period minimum of 3 months. Pre- and intra-operative findings were recorded along with post-operative outcome.

RESULTS

Out of eight patients, prolene mesh was used in five patients and permacol mesh (porcine collagen) in three patients. Mean operative time (console time) was 177 min and mean total time was 218 min. Mean blood loss was 23.7 ml. Functional outcome was satisfactory in all patients. There was no significant complication in any patient with mean hospital stay of 2.2 days. With average follow-up of 8.8 months, no patient had recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Robotic ventral rectopexy is a safe technique for rectal prolapse with excellent result in terms of functional outcome, recurrence and complications. With experience, the duration and cost can be comparable to laparoscopic technique.

Robot-Assisted Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: A 5-Year Experience at a Tertiary Referral Center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is being increasingly performed internationally to treat rectal prolapse syndromes. Robotic assistance appears advantageous for this procedure, but literature regarding robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is limited.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in the largest consecutive series of patients to date.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of prospectively collected data.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted in a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

All of the patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse syndromes between 2010 and 2015 were evaluated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Preoperative and postoperative (mesh and nonmesh) morbidity and functional outcome were analyzed. The actuarial recurrence rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 258 patients underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (mean ± SD follow-up = 23.5 ± 21.8 mo; range, 0.2 - 65.1 mo). There were no conversions and only 5 intraoperative complications (1.9%). Mortality (0.4%) and major (1.9%) and minor (<30 d) early morbidity (7.0%) were acceptably low. Only 1 (1.3%) mesh-related complication (asymptomatic vaginal mesh erosion) was observed. A significant improvement in obstructed defecation (78.6%) and fecal incontinence (63.7%) were achieved for patients (both p < 0.0005). At final follow-up, a new onset of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation was induced or worsened in 3.9% and 0.4%. The actuarial 5-year external rectal prolapse and internal rectal prolapse recurrence rates were 12.9% and 10.4%.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study including patients with minimal follow-up. No validated scores were used to assess function. The study was monocentric, and there was no control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is a safe and effective technique to treat rectal prolapse syndromes, providing an acceptable recurrence rate and good symptomatic relief with minimal morbidity. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A427.

Robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

Robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) is an appealing approach for the treatment of rectal prolapse and other conditions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of RVMR for rectal prolapse.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review for patients who underwent RVMR for rectal prolapse at our institution between July 2012 and May 2016. Any patient who underwent RVMR during this time frame was included in our analysis. Any cases involving colorectal resection or other rectopexy techniques were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 24 patients who underwent RVMR, 95.8% of patients were female. Median age was 67.5 years old (IQR 51.5-73.3), and 79.2% of patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists class III or IV. Median operative time was 191 min (IQR 164.3-242.5), and median length of stay was 3 days (IQR 2-3). There were no conversions, RVMR-related complications or mortality. Patients were followed for a median of 3.8 (IQR 1.2-15.9) months. Full-thickness recurrence occurred in 3 (12.4%) patients. Rates of fecal incontinence improved after surgery (62.5 vs. 41.5%, respectively) as did constipation (45.8 vs. 33.3%, respectively). No patients reported worsening symptoms postoperatively. Only one (4.2%) patient reported de novo constipation postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

RVMR is a feasible, safe and effective option for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with low short-term morbidity and mortality. Multicenter and long-term studies are needed to better assess the benefits of this procedure.

Surgery for constipation: systematic review and practice recommendations: Results II: Hitching procedures for the rectum (rectal suspension)

AIM

To assess the outcomes of rectal suspension procedures (forms of rectopexy) in adults with chronic constipation.

METHOD

Standardised methods and reporting of benefits and harms were used for all CapaCiTY reviews that closely adhered to PRISMA 2016 guidance. Main conclusions were presented as summary evidence statements with a summative Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2009) level.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles were identified, providing data on outcomes in 1238 patients. All studies reported only on laparoscopic approaches. Length of procedures ranged between 1.5 to 3.5 h, and length of stay between 4 to 5 days. Data on harms were inconsistently reported and heterogeneous, making estimates of harm tentative and imprecise. Morbidity rates ranged between 5-15%, with mesh complications accounting for 0.5% of patients overall. No mortality was reported after any procedures in a total of 1044 patients. Although inconsistently reported, good or satisfactory outcome occurred in 83% (74-91%) of patients; 86% (20-97%) of patients reported improvements in constipation after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). About 2-7% of patients developed anatomical recurrence. Patient selection was inconsistently documented. As most common indication, high grade rectal intussusception was corrected in 80-100% of cases after robotic or LVMR. Healing of prolapse-associated solitary rectal ulcer syndrome occurred in around 80% of patients after LVMR.

CONCLUSION

Evidence supporting rectal suspension procedures is currently derived from poor quality studies. Methodologically robust trials are needed to inform future clinical decision making.

Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external or internal rectal prolapse and enterocele: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to compare robot-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy procedures for posterior compartment procidentia in terms of restoration of the anatomy using magnetic resonance (MR) defaecography.

METHOD

Sixteen female patients (four with total prolapse, twelve with intussusception) underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and 14 female patients (two with prolapse, twelve with intussusception) laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). Primary outcome measures were perioperative parameters, complications and restoration of anatomy as assessed by MR defaecography, which was performed preoperatively and 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Patient demographics, operation length, operating theatre times and length of in-hospital stay were similar between the groups. The anatomical defects of rectal prolapse, intussusception and rectocele and enterocele were similarly corrected after rectopexy in either technique as confirmed with dynamic MR defaecography. A slight residual intussusception was observed in three patients with primary total prolapse (two RVMR vs one LVMR) and in one patient with primary intussusception (RVMR) (P = 0.60). Rectocele was reduced from a mean of 33.0 ± 14.9 mm to 5.5 ± 8.4 mm after RVMR (P < 0.001) and from 24.7 ± 17.5 mm to 7.2 ± 3.2 mm after LVMR (P < 0.001) (RVMR vs LVMR, P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic ventral rectopexy can be performed safely and within the same operative time as conventional laparoscopy. Minimally invasive ventral rectopexy allows good anatomical correction as assessed by MR defaecography, with no differences between the techniques.

Day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Ventral rectopexy to the promontory has become one of the most strongly advocated surgical treatments for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and deep enterocele. Despite its challenges, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with or without robotic assistance for selected patients can be performed with relatively minimal patient trauma thus creating the potential for same-day discharge. The aim of this prospective case-controlled study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and cost of day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with routine day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy.

METHODS

Between February 28, 2014 and March 3, 2015, 20 consecutive patients underwent day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse or deep enterocele at Michallon University Hospital, Grenoble. Patients were selected for day case surgery on the basis of motivation, favorable social circumstances, and general fitness. One out of every two patients underwent the robotic procedure (n = 10). Demographics, technical results, and costs were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Patients from both groups were comparable in terms of demographics and technical results. Patients operated on with the robot had significantly less pain (p = 0.045). Robotic rectopexy was associated with longer median operative time (94 vs 52.5 min, p < 0.001) and higher costs (9088 vs 3729 euros per procedure, p < 0.001) than laparoscopic rectopexy.

CONCLUSIONS

Day case robotic ventral rectopexy is feasible and safe, but results in longer operative time and higher costs than classical laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse and enterocele.

[Alloplastic material in prolapse surgery : Indications and postoperative outcome of ventral rectopexy]

BACKGROUND

In rectopexy the use of meshes provides stability by mechanical support as well as by the induction of scar formation; however, one of the problems of conventional methods of mesh rectopexy is that many patients postoperatively suffer from functional disorders, such as fecal incontinence and stool evacuation disorders. One reason is the damage of vegetative nerves following dorsal and lateral mobilization of the rectum, which is required for positioning of the mesh. In 2004 D'Hoore and Penninckx first described the method of ventral rectopexy, a new technique of mesh rectopexy which allows preservation of the autonomic nerves.

OBJECTIVE

Does ventral rectopexy provide advantages regarding functional outcome, complications and recurrence rates?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was carried out in the databases PubMed and Medline for studies on ventral rectoplexy. Presentation and analysis of the current state of relevant studies relating to ventral rectopexy.

RESULTS

Ventral rectopexy is characterized by a low complication rate and good functional results in terms of improvement of incontinence, constipation and stool evacuation disorders. The indications for ventral rectopexy are considered in patients with external prolapse of the rectum. Also in a well-selected patient population internal prolapse, rectocele as well as enterocele accompanied by obstructive defecation syndrome represent relative indications for ventral rectopexy.

CONCLUSION

In order to obtain a valid assessment of the value of this procedure it is crucial to improve the current lack of evidence (level 3) by prospective randomized studies that compare ventral rectopexy with other surgical techniques and nonsurgical treatment options.

Current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external and internal rectal prolapse

External and internal rectal prolapse with their affiliated rectocele and enterocele, are associated with debilitating symptoms such as obstructed defecation, pelvic pain and faecal incontinence. Since perineal procedures are associated with a higher recurrence rate, an abdominal approach is commonly preferred. Despite the description of greater than three hundred different procedures, thus far no clear superiority of one surgical technique has been demonstrated. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a relatively new and promising technique to correct rectal prolapse. In contrast to the abdominal procedures of past decades, VMR avoids posterolateral rectal mobilisation and thereby minimizes the risk of postoperative constipation. Because of a perceived acceptable recurrence rate, good functional results and low mesh-related morbidity in the short to medium term, VMR has been popularized in the past decade. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted VMR is now being progressively performed internationally and several articles and guidelines propose the procedure as the treatment of choice for rectal prolapse. In this article, an outline of the current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse is presented.

Overview of robotic colorectal surgery: Current and future practical developments

Minimal access surgery has revolutionised colorectal surgery by offering reduced morbidity and mortality over open surgery, while maintaining oncological and functional outcomes with the disadvantage of additional practical challenges. Robotic surgery aids the surgeon in overcoming these challenges. Uptake of robotic assistance has been relatively slow, mainly because of the high initial and ongoing costs of equipment but also because of limited evidence of improved patient outcomes. Advances in robotic colorectal surgery will aim to widen the scope of minimal access surgery to allow larger and more complex surgery through smaller access and natural orifices and also to make the technology more economical, allowing wider dispersal and uptake of robotic technology. Advances in robotic endoscopy will yield self-advancing endoscopes and a widening role for capsule endoscopy including the development of motile and steerable capsules able to deliver localised drug therapy and insufflation as well as being recharged from an extracorporeal power source to allow great longevity. Ultimately robotic technology may advance to the point where many conventional surgical interventions are no longer required. With respect to nanotechnology, surgery may eventually become obsolete.

Is robotic ventral mesh rectopexy better than laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation? A meta-analysis

Ventral mesh rectopexy is an approach in the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse and rectocele. Our aim was to assess whether robotic surgery confers any significant advantages over laparoscopy, and the associated complication rate. Two reviewers performed a literature search using MEDLINE and PubMed databases for studies comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. Five prospective, non-randomised studies were identified and included. A total of 244 patients (101 robotic and 143 laparoscopic) were included in the analysis. Operative time was shorter with laparoscopic surgery, mean weighted difference 27.94 [confidence interval (CI) 19.30-36.57; p < 0.00001]. The conversion rate was not significantly different between groups. There was a trend towards a reduction in length of inpatient stay and early post-operative complications in the robotic group; however, these did not reach statistical significance. Recurrence rates were similar between groups (odds ratio 0.91, CI 0.32-2.63; p = 0.87). Functional results were comparable between groups. Early studies show that robotic ventral rectopexy is a safe option compared to the laparoscopic approach, with overall comparable results. There appeared to be a trend towards a reduction in length of inpatient stay and post-operative complications. These perceived benefits may offset the longer operative times and outlay costs. Larger randomised controlled trials are needed to further evaluate clinical value and cost-effectiveness.

Anterior rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: Technical and functional results

AIM: To assess effectiveness, complications, recurrence rate, and recent improvements of the anterior rectopexy procedure for treatment of total rectal prolapse.

METHODS: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and other relevant database were searched to identify studies. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies and original articles in English language, with more than 10 patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse, with a follow-up over 3 mo were considered for the review.

RESULTS: Twelve non-randomized case series studies with 574 patients were included in the review. No surgical mortality was described. Conversion was needed in 17 cases (2.9%), most often due to difficult adhesiolysis. Twenty eight patients (4.8%) presented with major complications. Seven (1.2%) mesh-related complications were reported. Most frequent complications were urinary tract infection and urinary retention. Mean recurrence rate was 4.7% with a median follow-up of 23 mo. Improvement of constipation ranged from 3%-72% of the patients and worsening or new onset occurred in 0%-20%. Incontinence improved in 31%-84% patients who presented fecal incontinence at various stages. Evaluation of functional score was disparate between studies.

CONCLUSION: Based on the low long-term recurrence rate and favorable outcome data in terms of low de novo constipation rate, improvement of anal incontinence, and low complications rate, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy seems to emerge as an efficient procedure for the treatment of patients with total rectal prolapse.

Management of obstructed defecation

The management of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) is mainly conservative and mainly consists of fiber diet, bulking laxatives, rectal irrigation or hydrocolontherapy, biofeedback, transanal electrostimulation, yoga and psychotherapy. According to our experience, nearly 20% of the patients need surgical treatment. If we consider ODS an “iceberg syndrome”, with “emerging rocks”, rectocele and rectal internal mucosal prolapse, that may benefit from surgery, at least two out of ten patients also has “underwater rocks” or occult disorders, such as anismus, rectal hyposensation and anxiety/depression, which mostly require conservative treatment. Rectal prolapse excision or obliterative suture, rectocele and/or enterocele repair, retrograde Malone’s enema and partial myotomy of the puborectalis muscle are effective in selected cases. Laparoscopic ventral sacral colporectopexy may be an effective surgical option. Stapled transanal rectal resection may lead to severe complications. The Transtar procedure seems to be safer, when dealing with recto-rectal intussusception. A multidisciplinary approach to ODS provides the best results.

Robotic right colectomy: A worthwhile procedure? Results of a meta-analysis of trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy

BACKGROUND:

Robotic right colectomy (RRC) is a complex procedure, offered to selected patients at institutions highly experienced with the procedure. It is still not clear if this approach is worthwhile in enhancing patient recovery and reducing post-operative complications, compared with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). Literature is still fragmented and no meta-analyses have been conducted to compare the two procedures. This work aims at reducing this gap in literature, in order to draw some preliminary conclusions on the differences and similarities between RRC and LRC, focusing on short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies comparing RRC and LRC, and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Peri-operative outcomes (e.g., morbidity, mortality, anastomotic leakage rates, blood loss, operative time) constituted the study end points.

RESULTS:

Six studies, including 168 patients undergoing RRC and 348 patients undergoing LRC were considered as suitable. The patients in the two groups were similar with respect to sex, body mass index, presence of malignant disease, previous abdominal surgery, and different with respect to age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. There were no statistically significant differences between RRC and LRC regarding estimated blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, number of retrieved lymph nodes, development of anastomotic leakage and other complications, overall morbidity, rates of reoperation, overall mortality, hospital stays. RRC resulted in significantly longer operative time.

CONCLUSIONS:

The RRC procedure is feasible, safe, and effective in selected patients. However, operative times are longer comparing to LRC and no advantages in peri-operative and post-operative outcomes are demonstrated with the use of the robotic surgical system.