Robotic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy Research Articles

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.

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

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

Partial Delorme procedure for the management of recurrent isolated posterior wall prolapse after robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse.

Partial Delorme procedure for the management of recurrent isolated posterior wall prolapse after robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse.

Multicompartment pelvic floor prolapse repairs: Surgical principles

The operative management of rectal prolapse has evolved substantially over time. Many patients with rectal prolapse also have concomitant prolapse of their anterior and/or middle compartments. Optimal repair of pelvic organ prolapse will address all of the involved compartments, which often requires close collaboration with a urogynecology or female urology team. This chapter describes our technique for robotic ventral mesh rectopexy with sacrocolpopexy when indicated.

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

BackgroundThe 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).MethodsThe 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.ResultsAfter 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).ConclusionRVMR 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.

Trends in the surgical management of rectal prolapse: An Asian experience.

Posterior compartment pelvic floor prolapse (PCPFP) leads to anatomical distortion and functional impairment. Definitive management involves surgery. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) has gained increasing popularity in the West as it emerges as a durable approach. Existing literature and evidence on safety and efficacy of PCPFP surgery in the Asian population remains sparse. Our study aims to review our institution's experience in surgery for PCPFP. All cases of PCPFP surgery in Singapore General Hospital between 2014 to 2019 were studied. Eighty-three patients had surgery performed for PCPFP, with the majority (83%) in the last 3 years. Median age was 63 years and 92% were female. Most patients (64%) had obstructive defecation symptoms, while the remaining had fecal incontinence, rectal bleeding, or anal discomfort. Main anatomical indication for surgery was external rectal prolapse (48%). Other indications were rectocele and/or rectal intussusception. The majority (66%) had abdominal rectopexy, while 28 underwent Delorme's procedure. Forty-five of the 50 VMRs were minimally invasive. Patients undergoing rectopexy were observed to be younger. Median length of stay was 3 days. Nine patients had early operative complications of which ileus was most common. Median length of follow-up was 12 months. The majority (93%) had initial symptom satisfaction. Eleven patients had anatomical recurrence with a median length of 9months to development. There was no significant difference in outcomes between abdominal vs perineal approach, or laparoscopic vs robotic VMR. Surgery for PCPFP has gained acceptance in our Asian institution with good symptom improvement, alongside low morbidity and recurrence.

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?

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. 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. 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. 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.

Surgical decision-making for rectal prolapse: one size does not fit all

ABSTRACT Background Surgery remains the only known treatment option for rectal prolapse. Although over 100 abdominal and perineal procedures are available, there is no consensus as to which intervention is best suited for an individual. This retrospective cohort study describes the patient- and disease-related factors involved in making surgical recommendations around rectal prolapse in a single surgeon experience. Methods 91 consecutive patients ≥18 years old diagnosed with external and/or high-grade internal rectal prolapse were assessed and were prospectively entered into an IRB approved registry. Information on patient symptoms, comorbidities, exam findings, surgeon judgment, and patient preference was collected. Treatment recommendations (abdominal, perineal, or no operation) were analyzed and compared. Results Surgical intervention was recommended to 93% of patients. Of those, 66% were recommended robotic abdominal procedures: 75%, robotic ventral mesh rectopexies; 16%, resection rectopexies; and 9%, suture rectopexies. On univariate analysis, patients with older age, higher ASA scores, presence of cardiopulmonary morbidity, pain as a primary rectal prolapse symptom, rectal prolapse always descended, and surgeon concern for frailty and general anesthesia were associated with recommendations for perineal operations (p < 0.05 for all). However, on multivariate analysis, only age and concern over prolonged anesthesia remained correlated with a recommendation for perineal surgery. Of patients >80 years of age, 15% were recommended an abdominal approach. Conclusions With multiple options available for the treatment of rectal prolapse, treatment recommendations remain surgeon-dependent and may be influenced by many factors. In our practice, robotic ventral mesh rectopexy was the most commonly recommended operation and was offered to carefully selected patients of advanced age. Although robotic surgery and ventral mesh rectopexy may not be accessible to all patients and surgeons, this represents a single surgeon’s practice bias. This study reinforces the importance of perineal procedures for higher-risk individuals.

Ventral rectopexy with biological mesh for recurrent disorders of the posterior pelvic organ compartment

Recurrent prolapse of the posterior pelvic organ compartment presents a management challenge, with the best surgical procedure remaining unclear. We present functional outcome and patient satisfaction after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) with biological mesh in patients with recurrence. We analyzed data from 30 patients with recurrent posterior pelvic organ prolapse who underwent VMR with biological mesh from August 2012 to January 2018. Data included patient demographics and intra- and postoperative findings; functional outcome as assessed by Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), Obstructed Defecation Score Longo (ODS), and Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS); and patient satisfaction. CCCS, CCIS, and ODS were significantly improved at 6-12months postoperatively and at last follow-up. Patient satisfaction (visual analog scale [VAS] 6.7 [0 to 10]), subjective symptoms (+ 3.4 [scale - 5 to + 5]), and quality of life improvement (+ 3.0 [scale from - 5 to + 5]) were high at last follow-up. The rates of morbidity and major complications were 13% and 3%, respectively. There were no mesh-related complications or deaths. Difference in type of previous surgery (abdominal or transanal/perineal) had no significant effect on results. VMR with biological mesh is a safe and effective option for patients with recurrent posterior pelvic organ prolapse. It reduces functional symptoms, has a low complication rate, and promotes patient satisfaction.

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

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. 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. 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. During the study period 96 patients (86 women) underwent RVMR. The mean age was 62.3years (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 37months (range 2.3-92months). 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. 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

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThere 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).ConclusionsAlthough 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.

Correction to: Short-term outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Is robotic superior?

The authors wish to clarify a number of points that were incorrectly stated in the original article. These changes do not invalidate the article.

Ventral rectopexy with biological mesh: short-term functional results.

Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is an established, minimally invasive, nerve-sparing procedure for the treatment of various symptomatic morphological changes in the posterior pelvic compartment. We present the short-term functional outcome and patient satisfaction after laparoscopic and robotic VMR with biological mesh. We analyzed data from 123 patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) or robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) from August 2012 to January 2017. Included in these data were patient demographics, intra- and postoperative findings, Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), Obstructed Defecation Score Longo (ODS), Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), and patient satisfaction as measured by visual analog scale (0-10). Improvements in CCCS, CCIS, and ODS were statistically significant at 6 and 12months (p < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was excellent at 6 and 12months (8.2/10 and 8.3/10, respectively). The overall complication rate was 14%, with a major complication rate of 2%. No mesh-related complications were observed. The need for surgical re-intervention because of relapse, symptom persistence or recurrence, or new symptoms was 3%. Outcome appears to be similar between LVMR and RVMR. Both LVMR and RVMR with biological mesh are safe and effective in reducing symptoms, as measured by CCCS, CCIS, and ODS, and patient satisfaction is high.

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

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. 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. Of the 24 patients who underwent RVMR, 95.8% of patients were female. Median age was 67.5years old (IQR 51.5-73.3), and 79.2% of patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists class III or IV. Median operative time was 191min (IQR 164.3-242.5), and median length of stay was 3days (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. 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.

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.