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

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining prominence in colorectal procedures owing to advantages like three-dimensional vision and enhanced dexterity, particularly in rectal surgery. Although recent reviews report similar outcomes between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and RS, this study investigates the evolving trends in outcomes over time, paralleling the increasing experience in RS.

METHODS

A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted of randomised controlled trials exploring postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing RS or LS for colorectal pathology. The primary outcome measure was postoperative complications. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's assessment tool. Randomised controlled trials were identified from the PubMed®, Embase® and CINAHL® (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases via the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

RESULTS

Of 491 articles screened, 13 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of postoperative complications revealed no significant difference between RS and LS (relative risk [RR]: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.18, p=0.72). Meta-regression analysis of postoperative complications demonstrated a significant trend favouring RS over time (yearly change in Ln(RR): -0.0620, 95% CI: -0.1057 to -0.0183, p=0.005). Secondary outcome measures included operative time, length of stay, blood loss, conversion to open surgery, positive circumferential resection margins and lymph nodes retrieved. The only significant findings were shorter operative time favouring LS (mean difference: 41.48 minutes, 95% CI: 22.15 to 60.81 minutes, p<0.001) and fewer conversions favouring RS (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.85, p=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

As experience in RS grows, evidence suggests an increasing safety profile for patients. Meta-regression revealed a significant temporal trend with complication rates favouring RS over LS. Heterogeneous reporting of complications hindered subgroup analysis of minor and major complications. LS remains quicker. Rising adoption of RS coupled with emerging evidence is expected to further elucidate its clinical efficacy.

Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy is considered the standard of care in the surgical management of rectal prolapse syndromes in fit patients. We aimed to investigate the outcomes after robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVR) and compare them with our laparoscopic series (LVR). Additionally, we report the learning curve of RVR. As the financial aspect for the use of a robotic platform remains an important obstacle to allow generalized adoption, cost-effectiveness was also evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospectively maintained data set including 149 consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive ventral rectopexy between December 2015 and April 2021 was reviewed. The results after a median follow-up of 32 months were analyzed. Additionally, a thorough assessment of the economic aspect was performed.

RESULTS

On a total of 149 consecutive patients 72 underwent a LVR and 77 underwent a RVR. Median operative time was comparable for both groups (98 min (RVR) vs. 89 min (LVR); p = 0.16). Learning curve showed that an experienced colorectal surgeon required approximately 22 cases in stabilizing the operative time for RVR. Overall functional results were similar in both groups. There were no conversions or mortality. There was, however, a significant difference (p < 0.01) in hospital stay in favor of the robotic group (1 day vs. 2 days). The overall cost of RVR was higher than LVR.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study shows that RVR is a safe and feasible alternative for LVR. With specific adjustments in surgical technique and robotic materials, we developed a cost-effective way of performing RVR.

Robot-assisted surgery in thoracic and visceral indications: an updated systematic review

BACKGROUND

In surgical advancements, robot-assisted surgery (RAS) holds several promises like shorter hospital stays, reduced complications, and improved technical capabilities over standard care. Despite extensive evidence, the actual patient benefits of RAS remain unclear. Thus, our systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in visceral and thoracic surgery compared to laparoscopic or open surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in two databases (Medline via Ovid and The Cochrane Library) in April 2023. The search was restricted to 14 predefined thoracic and visceral procedures and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Synthesis of data on critical outcomes followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, and the risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool Version 1.

RESULTS

For five out of 14 procedures, no evidence could be identified. A total of 20 RCTs and five follow-up publications met the inclusion criteria. Overall, most studies had either not reported or measured patient-relevant endpoints. The majority of outcomes showed comparable results between study groups. However, RAS demonstrated potential advantages in specific endpoints (e.g., blood loss), yet these findings relied on a limited number of low-quality studies. Statistically significant RAS benefits were also noted in some outcomes for certain indications-recurrence, quality of life, transfusions, and hospitalisation. Safety outcomes were improved for patients undergoing robot-assisted gastrectomy, as well as rectal and liver resection. Regarding operation time, results were contradicting.

CONCLUSION

In summary, conclusive assertions on RAS superiority are impeded by inconsistent and insufficient low-quality evidence across various outcomes and procedures. While RAS may offer potential advantages in some surgical areas, healthcare decisions should also take into account the limited quality of evidence, financial implications, and environmental factors. Furthermore, considerations should extend to the ergonomic aspects for maintaining a healthy surgical environment.

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.

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis of Intra- and Post-Operative Complications

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic surgery is attracting ever-growing interest for its potential advantages such as small incisions, fine movements, and magnification of the operating field. Only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have explored the differences in perioperative outcomes between the two approaches.

METHODS

We screened the main online databases from inception to May 2023. We included studies in English enrolling adult patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery. We used the following exclusion criteria: surgery with the involvement of thoracic esophagus, and patients affected by severe heart, pulmonary and end-stage renal disease. We compared intra- and post-operative complications, length of hospitalization, and costs between laparoscopic and robotic approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs were included. We found no differences in the rate of anastomotic leakage, cardiovascular complications, estimated blood loss, readmission, deep vein thrombosis, length of hospitalization, mortality, and post-operative pain between robotic and laparoscopic surgery; post-operative pneumonia was less frequent in the robotic approach. The conversion to open surgery was less frequent in the robotic approach, which was characterized by shorter time to first flatus but higher operative time and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic gastrointestinal surgery has some advantages compared to the laparoscopic technique such as lower conversion rate, faster recovery of bowel movement, but it has higher economic costs.

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.

Robot-assisted general surgery is safe during the learning curve: a 5-year Australian experience

Robot-assisted general surgery has become increasingly common in the Australian public sector since 2003. It provides significant technical advantages compared to laparoscopic surgery. Currently, it is estimated that the learning curve for surgeons starting off with robotic surgery is complete after 15 cases. This is a retrospective case series, following the progress of four surgeons with minimal robotic experience over 5 years. Patients undergoing colorectal procedures and hernia repairs were included. 303 robotic cases were included in this study, 193 colorectal surgeries and 110 hernia repairs. 20.2% of colorectal patients experienced an adverse event and 10.0% of hernia patients had a complication. The learning curve was correlated to the average docking time, and it was found that this was complete after 2 years, or after a minimum of 12 to 15 cases. Patient length of stay decreases as surgeon experience increases. Robotic surgery is a safe approach to colorectal surgery and hernia repairs with some potential benefits in terms of patient outcomes as surgeon experience increases.

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.

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.

The Evidence Behind Robot-Assisted Abdominopelvic Surgery : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Use of robot-assisted surgery has increased dramatically since its advent in the 1980s, and nearly all surgical subspecialties have adopted it. However, whether it has advantages compared with laparoscopy or open surgery is unknown.

PURPOSE

To assess the quality of evidence and outcomes of robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopy and open surgery in adults.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to April 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials that compared robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery with laparoscopy, open surgery, or both.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted study data and risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 50 studies with 4898 patients were included. Of the 39 studies that reported incidence of Clavien-Dindo complications, 4 (10%) showed fewer complications with robot-assisted surgery. The majority of studies showed no difference in intraoperative complications, conversion rates, and long-term outcomes. Overall, robot-assisted surgery had longer operative duration than laparoscopy, but no obvious difference was seen versus open surgery.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity was present among and within the included surgical subspecialties, which precluded meta-analysis. Several trials may not have been powered to assess relevant differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is currently no clear advantage with existing robotic platforms, which are costly and increase operative duration. With refinement, competition, and cost reduction, future versions have the potential to improve clinical outcomes without the existing disadvantages.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42020182027).

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.

Evaluation of the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

BACKGROUND

The current standard treatment for external rectal prolapse and symptomatic high-grade internal rectal prolapse is surgical correction with minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy using either laparoscopy or robotic assistance. This study examines the number of procedures needed to complete the learning curve for robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and reach adequate performance.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all primary RVMR from 2011 to 2019 performed in a tertiary pelvic floor clinic by two colorectal surgeons (A and B) was performed. Both surgeons had previous experience with laparoscopic rectopexy, but no robotic experience. Skin-to-skin operating times (OT) were assessed using LC-CUSUM analyses. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed using CUSUM analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 182 (surgeon A) and 91 (surgeon B) RVMRs were performed in total. There were no relevant differences in patient characteristics between the two surgeons. Median OT was 75 min (range 46-155; surgeon A) and 90 min (range 63-139; surgeon B). The learning curve regarding OT was completed after 36 procedures for surgeon A and 55 procedures for surgeon B. Both before and after completion of the learning curve, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates remained below a predefined acceptable level of performance.

CONCLUSIONS

36 to 55 procedures are required to complete the learning curve for RVMR. The implementation of robotic surgery does not inflict any additional risks on patients at the beginning of a surgeon's learning curve.

Optimizing outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery with robotic platforms

Advanced robotic technology makes it easier to perform total mesorectal excision procedures in the narrow pelvis for rectal cancer while maintaining the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer leads to lower conversion rates and faster recovery of urogenital function than conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, longer operative time and high cost are major weaknesses of robotic surgery. To date, most other short-term surgical outcomes, pathologic outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery have not shown significant advantages over laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery is still a valid and highly anticipated surgical approach for rectal cancer because it greatly reduces the surgeon's workload and learning curve. There are also advantages when robotic techniques are applied to technically demanding procedures such as lateral pelvic lymph node dissection or intersphincteric resection. The introduction of new surgical robot systems, including the da Vinci® SP system, is expected to expand the applications of robotic surgery and provide new advantages.

Surgical management of the rectocele - An update

Rectocele is defined as a hernia of the rectum with protrusion of the anterior rectal wall through the posterior wall of the vagina. This condition occurs commonly, with an estimated prevalence of 30-50% of women over age 50. The symptomatology that leads to consultation is variable but consists predominantly of anorectal and/or gynecological complaints such as dyschezia, requiring digital disimpaction maneuvers, pelvic heaviness, anal incontinence, or dyspareunia. Rectocele may be isolated or associated with other disorders of pelvic stasis involving cystocele and uterine prolapse. Complementary exams (dynamic imaging and anorectal manometry) are essential before deciding on the surgical management of this condition. The indications for surgical management of rectocele are based on the intensity of symptoms and the resulting deterioration in quality of life, and surgery should be discussed after failure of medical treatment. Different approaches are possible, although there is currently no real consensus in the literature. The initial approach depends on the type of rectocele: if it involves the low or mid rectum or is isolated, an approach from below (transanal, transperineal, or transvaginal approach) can be proposed, while, in the presence of a high rectocele and/or associated with various disorders of pelvic stasis, transabdominal rectopexy is more suitable.

Abdominal ventral rectopexy with colectomy for obstructed defecation syndrome: An alternative option for selected patients

BACKGROUND

Abdominal ventral rectopexy (AVR) with colectomy is controversial in the treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). Literature data on this technique for ODS are very limited.

AIM

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of AVR with colectomy for selected patients with ODS.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent AVR with colectomy for ODS were identified prospectively from 2016 to 2017 in our department. Patient demographics, perioperative surgical results, and postoperative follow-up outcomes were collected and analyzed. Long-term follow-up was evaluated with standardized questionnaires. The severity of symptoms was assessed by the objective Wexner Constipation Score (WCS) and ODS Score. The quality of life was assessed by the Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score. Functional outcome was compared pre- and post-operatively for each patient. The primary outcomes were determined by the improvement in symptoms and quality of life. Secondary outcome measures were operating time, postoperative length of stay, morbidity and mortality, improvement of pelvic floor structure, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Four patients underwent robotic-assisted surgery, and two patients underwent a laparoscopic-assisted procedure. The mean operating time for the robotic approach was 243 min (range 160–300 min), and the mean operating time for the laparoscopic approach was 230 min (range 220-240 min). The mean postoperative length of stay was 8.2 d (range 6-12 d). There was no conversion to open procedure and no postoperative mortality. No urinary retention, wound infection, prolonged ileus, pelvic infection and anastomosis leakage occurred. Six patients were followed up for 36 mo. The WCS, ODS, and Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score improved significantly postoperatively (P < 0.05). The WCS and ODS scores showed the best remission and stabilization at 6 to 12 mo after surgery. There was no recurrence or novel constipation after surgery. None of the patients used laxative medication.

CONCLUSION

Robotic and laparoscopic-assisted ventral rectopexy with colectomy is a safe and effective procedure for selected patients with ODS. However, comprehensive preoperative evaluation and careful patient selection are essential.

Research quality and transparency, outcome measurement and evidence for safety and effectiveness in robot-assisted surgery: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has potential panspecialty surgical benefits. High-quality evidence for widespread implementation is lacking. This systematic review aimed to assess the RAS evidence base for the quality of randomized evidence on safety and effectiveness, specialty 'clustering', and outcomes for RAS research.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines. All pathologies and procedures utilizing RAS were included. Studies were limited to RCTs, the English language and publication within the last decade. The main outcomes selected for the review design were safety and efficacy, and study purpose. Secondary outcomes were study characteristics, funding and governance.

RESULTS

Searches identified 7142 titles, from which 183 RCTs were identified for data extraction. The commonest specialty was urology (35·0 per cent). There were just 76 unique study populations, indicating significant overlap of publications; 103 principal studies were assessed further. Only 64·1 per cent of studies reported a primary outcome measure, with 29·1 per cent matching their registration/protocol. Safety was assessed in 68·9 per cent of trials; operative complications were the commonest measure. Forty-eight per cent of trials reported no significant difference in safety between RAS and comparator, and 11 per cent reported RAS to be superior. Efficacy or effectiveness was assessed in 80·6 per cent of trials; 43 per cent of trials showed no difference between RAS and comparator, and 24 per cent reported that RAS was superior. Funding was declared in 47·6 per cent of trials.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for RAS is of limited quality and variable transparency in reporting. No patterns of harm to patients were identified. RAS has potential to be beneficial, but requires continued high-quality evaluation.

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.

Ventral Rectopexy

Rectal prolapse is a debilitating condition that often results in impaired quality of life. Posterior compartment defects including rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception are often associated with middle and anterior compartment prolapse and require a multicompartment approach to treatment. In recent years, ventral rectopexy, with or without sacrocolpopexy for combined middle compartment prolapse, has emerged as a safe and effective method of treatment for rectal prolapse. In this article, we aim to review the etiology of rectal prolapse and intussusception, describe the indications and workup for surgery, discuss technical aspects of ventral rectopexy alone and in combination with sacrocolpopexy, review potential surgical complications, and describe the reported outcomes of the surgery.

Next-generation robotics in gastrointestinal surgery

The global numbers of robotic gastrointestinal surgeries are increasing. However, the evidence base for robotic gastrointestinal surgery does not yet support its widespread adoption or justify its cost. The reasons for its continued popularity are complex, but a notable driver is the push for innovation - robotic surgery is seen as a compelling solution for delivering on the promise of minimally invasive precision surgery - and a changing commercial landscape delivers the promise of increased affordability. Novel systems will leverage the robot as a data-driven platform, integrating advances in imaging, artificial intelligence and machine learning for decision support. However, if this vision is to be realized, lessons must be heeded from current clinical trials and translational strategies, which have failed to demonstrate patient benefit. In this Perspective, we critically appraise current research to define the principles on which the next generation of gastrointestinal robotics trials should be based. We also discuss the emerging commercial landscape and define existing and new technologies.

Chronic pelvic pain and rectal prolapse invite consideration of enterocele

AIM

Data on the pathogenesis and symptoms of enterocele are limited. The objectives of this study were to determine the clinical phenotype of patients with enterocele, to highlight the main functional and/or anatomical associations and to improve the accuracy of the preoperative assessment of pelvic floor disorders.

METHOD

A total of 588 patients who were referred to a tertiary unit for an anorectal complaint completed a self-administered questionnaire and underwent physical examination, anorectal manometry and defaecography. Using defaecography, enterocele was defined as a radiological hernia of the small bowel into an enlarged rectovaginal space. One hundred and thirty-five patients with enterocele were age- and gender-matched with 270 patients without enterocele. Factors associated with enterocele were assessed using univariate and multivariate analysis models.

RESULTS

Patients with enterocele were less frequently obese than patients without enterocele (8/135 vs 36/270; P = 0.02) and more frequently had a past history of pelvic surgery (51/135 vs 75/270; P = 0.04). They complained more frequently of pelvic pain on bearing down (29/135 vs 24/270; P = 0.003), anal procidentia (37/135 vs 46/270; P = 0.01) and more frequently had irritable bowel syndrome (83/135 vs 131/270; P = 0.01) and severe constipation according to the Kess score (104/135 vs 182/270; P = 0.04). Anorectal function was comparable between the two groups. Patients with enterocele had more frequent rectoceles and overt rectal prolapses than patients without enterocele.

CONCLUSIONS

Enterocele should be investigated in patients with chronic pelvic pain, overt rectal prolapse and/or a past history of pelvic surgery.

Robotic Colorectal Surgery

The role of robotics in colon and rectal surgery has been established as an important and effective tool for the surgeon. Its inherent technologies have provided for increased visualization and ease of dissection in the minimally invasive approach to surgery. The value of the robot is apparent in the more challenging aspects of colon and rectal procedures, including the intracorporeal anastomosis for right colectomies and the low pelvic dissection for benign and malignant diseases.

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.

The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the growth in laparoscopic surgery, comparable oncological outcomes, and reduced complication rates, the majority of colorectal surgery is still performed via an open approach. Reasons for this may include technical difficulties associated with operating in narrow spaces such as in the pelvis and inadequate experience. Robotic surgery provides potential solutions to some of these challenges. This review will summarize the state of the literature regarding robotic colorectal surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The most consistent benefit of robotic surgery is decreasing operative conversions, specifically in rectal cancer. In partial colectomies, there is evidence to support quicker return to bowel function. Oncologic outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach are equivalent. Robotic surgery provides solutions to the challenges posed by laparoscopy, including wristed instruments, ease of intracorporeal suturing, and ergonomic advantages. Randomized trials to evaluate peri-operative outcomes will be important. If robotics is able to facilitate conversion of open colectomies to their minimally invasive equivalent, robotics may end up proving to be advantageous in the peri-operative and post-operative period. Continued studies are warranted.

Consensus Statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse, rectal procidentia, "complete" prolapse or "third-degree" prolapse is the full-thickness prolapse of the rectal wall through the anal canal and has a significant impact on quality of life. The incidence of rectal prolapse has been estimated to be approximately 2.5 per 100,000 inhabitants with a clear predominance among elderly women. The aim of this consensus statement was to provide evidence-based data to allow an individualized and appropriate management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse. The strategy used to search for evidence was based on application of electronic sources such as MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Review Library, CINAHL and EMBASE. The recommendations were defined and graded based on the current levels of evidence and in accordance with the criteria adopted by the American College of Gastroenterology's Chronic Constipation Task Force. Five evidence levels were defined. The recommendations were graded A, B, and C.

The role of robotics in colorectal surgery

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

Trends in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a population analysis

PURPOSE

Rectal prolapse is a common condition, with conflicting opinions on optimal surgical management. Existing literature is predominantly composed of case series, with a dearth of evidence demonstrating current, real-world practice. This study investigated recent national trends in management of rectal prolapse in the Republic of Ireland (ROI).

METHODS

This population analysis used a national database to identify patients admitted in the ROI primarily for the management of rectal prolapse, as defined by the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10). Demographics, procedures, comorbidities, and outcomes were obtained for patients admitted from 2005 to 2015 inclusive.

RESULTS

There were 2648 admissions with a primary diagnosis of rectal prolapse; 39.3% underwent surgical correction. The majority were treated with either a perineal resection (47.2%) or an abdominal rectopexy ± resection (45.1%). The population-adjusted rate of operative intervention increased over the study period, from 25 to 42 per million (p < 0.001), with no change in the mean age of patients over time (p = 0.229). The application of a laparoscopic approach increased over time (p = 0.001). Patients undergoing an abdominal rectopexy were younger than those undergoing a perineal procedure (64.1 ± 17.3 versus 75.2 ± 15.5 years, p < 0.001) despite having a similar Charlson Comorbidity Index (p = 0.097). The mortality rate for elective repair was 0.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the popularization of ventral mesh rectopexy over the study period, perineal resection Delorme's procedure remains the most common procedure employed for the correction of rectal prolapse in the ROI, with specific approach determined by age.

Radiological Changes After Resection Rectopexy in Patients with Rectal Prolapse-Influence on Clinical Symptoms and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Resection rectopexy is performed to correct the anatomic defect associated with rectal prolapse. The aim of the study was to determine whether the change in the radiological prolapse grade has an influence on patients' symptoms and quality of life.

METHODS

The study investigated 40 patients who underwent resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse. The following were determined before and after surgery: radiological prolapse grade, anorectal angle and pelvic floor position in defecography, clinical symptoms (Cleveland Clinic Incontinence and Constipation Scores, Kelly-Hohlschneider Score), quality of life.

RESULTS

Defecography revealed postoperative improvement in the prolapse grade and pelvic floor position (p < 0.05). The clinical symptoms and quality of life improved in both, the total population (n = 40) and in patients with improved radiological prolapse grade (n = 30): all clinical scores (p < 0.05), SF-36 (vitality, social role, mental health p < 0.05), and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale (lifestyle, coping, embarrassment p < 0.05). Patients without improved radiological findings showed no change in their symptoms or quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that the radiological prolapse grade is improved by resection rectopexy. Correction of the anatomic defect was associated with improvement in symptoms and quality of life. Defecography may therefore be useful in the postoperative assessment of persistent symptoms or reduced quality of life.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Importance

This review provides a comprehensive comparison of treatment outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) based on randomly-controlled trials (RCTs).

Objectives

We employed RCTs to provide a systematic review that will enable the relevant community to weigh the effectiveness and efficacy of surgical robotics in controversial fields on surgical procedures both overall and on each individual surgical procedure.

Evidence review

A search was conducted for RCTs in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 1981 to 2016. Among a total of 1,517 articles, 27 clinical reports with a mean sample size of 65 patients per report (32.7 patients who underwent RLS and 32.5 who underwent CLS), met the inclusion criteria.

Findings

CLS shows significant advantages in total operative time, net operative time, total complication rate, and operative cost (p < 0.05 in all cases), whereas the estimated blood loss was less in RLS (p < 0.05). As subgroup analyses, conversion rate on colectomy and length of hospital stay on hysterectomy statistically favors RLS (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Despite higher operative cost, RLS does not result in statistically better treatment outcomes, with the exception of lower estimated blood loss. Operative time and total complication rate are significantly more favorable with CLS.

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.

[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.