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.

Redo ventral rectopexy: is it worthwhile?

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely used surgical treatment for posterior pelvic organ prolapse; however, evidence of the utility of revisional surgery is lacking. Our aim was to assess the technical details, safety and outcomes of redo minimally invasive VMR for patients with external rectal prolapse (ERP) recurrence or relapsed symptoms of internal rectal prolapse (IRP). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with recurrent ERP or symptomatic IRP who underwent redo minimally invasive VMR between 2011 and 2016. The study was conducted at three hospitals in Finland. Data collected retrospectively included patient demographics, in addition to perioperative and short-term postoperative findings. At follow-up, all living patients were sent a questionnaire concerning postoperative disease-related symptoms and quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 43 redo minimally invasive VMR were performed during the study period. The indication for reoperation was recurrent ERP in 22 patients and relapsed symptoms of IRP in 21 patients. In most operations (62.8%), the previously used mesh was left in situ and a new one was placed. Ten (23.3%) patients experienced complications, including 2 (4.7%) mesh-related complications. The recurrence rate was 4.5% for ERP. Three patients out of 43 were reoperated on for various reasons. One patient required postoperative laparoscopic hematoma evacuation. Patients operated on for recurrent ERP seemed to benefit more from the reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive redo VMR appears to be a safe and effective procedure for treating posterior pelvic floor dysfunction with acceptable recurrence and reoperation rates.

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.

A prospective pilot study on MRI visibility of iron oxide-impregnated polyvinylidene fluoride mesh after ventral rectopexy.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides excellent information about pelvic anatomy after ventral rectopexy, but the position of the conventional mesh is not seen constantly. Iron oxide-impregnated polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) meshes are proven to have MRI visibility in hernia or vaginal reconstructive surgery. This prospective pilot study was designed to assess the visualization, position, and shape of the magnetic resonance (MR)-visible synthetic pelvic mesh used in minimally invasive ventral rectopexy. METHODS: Eight patients with pelvic organ prolapse were recruited for laparoscopic (LVMR) or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) with a synthetic MR-visible PVDF mesh. A follow-up visit was scheduled at 3 months after surgery. MR imaging was performed to evaluate the position and dimensions of the mesh and anatomical result. The visibility of the mesh in each sequence was assessed subjectively. RESULTS: The visibility of the mesh was best on T1-weighted flash images. The mesh was also well visualized on T2-weighted sagittal images. T2-weighted images, in general, provided best visualization of the surrounding anatomical structures and enabled assessment of the mesh fixation. CONCLUSIONS: T2 sagittal and T1-weighted flash images provide the best information about the position and integrity of the iron oxide-impregnated PVDF mesh after LVMR or RVMR with a short examination time.

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.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in male patients with external rectal prolapse is associated with a high reoperation rate.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy has been used to treat male patients with external rectal prolapse, but evidence to support this approach is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of this new abdominal rectopexy surgical technique in men. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter study. Adult male patients who were operated on for external rectal prolapse using ventral rectopexy in five tertiary hospitals in Finland between 2006 and 2014 were included in the study. Patient demographics, detailed operative, postoperative and short-term follow-up data were collected from patient registers in participating hospitals. A questionnaire and informed consent form was sent to all patients. The questionnaire included scores for anal incontinence, obstructed defecation syndrome, urinary symptoms and sexual dysfunction. The main outcome measure was the incidence of recurrent rectal prolapse. Surgical morbidity, the need for surgical repair due to recurrent symptoms and functional outcomes were secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 52 adult male patients with symptoms caused by external rectal prolapse underwent ventral rectopexy. The questionnaire response rate was 64.4 %. Baseline clinical characteristics and perioperative results were similar in the responder and non-responder groups. A total of 9 (17.3 %) patients faced complications. There were two (3.8 %) serious surgical complications during the 30-day period after surgery that necessitated reoperation. None of the complications were mesh related. Recurrence of the prolapse was noticed in nine patients (17 %), and postoperative mucosal anal prolapse symptoms persisted in 11 patients (21 %). As a result, the reoperation rate was high. Altogether, 17 patients (33 %) underwent reoperation during the follow-up period due to postoperative complications or recurrent rectal or mucosal prolapse. According to the postoperative questionnaire data, patients under 40 had good functional results in terms of anal continence, defecation, urinary functions and sexual activity. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is a safe surgical procedure in male patients with external prolapse. However, a high overall reoperation rate was noticed due to recurrent rectal and residual mucosal prolapse. This suggests that the ventral rectopexy technique should be modified or combined with other abdominal or perineal methods when treating male rectal prolapse patients.

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.

Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a matched-pairs study of operative details and complications.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy has been proven to be safe and effective in the treatment of rectal prolapse or intussusception. Robotic-assisted surgery may offer potential benefits to this operation. This study describes the comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in terms of clinical parameters, operative details, postoperative complications and short-term outcomes. METHODS: Twenty patients operated on for rectal prolapse or intussusception using the Da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale CA, USA) were prospectively followed for 3 months. The cases were pair-matched with laparoscopically operated controls from registry files. RESULTS: Mean operating time was 159 min (standard deviation; ±37 SD) and 153 min (±33 SD) and mean total time in the operating theatre 231 min (±39 SD) and 234 min (±41 SD) for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic operations, respectively. Mean blood loss was 25 ml (±49 SD) in robotic-assisted and 37 ml (±50 SD) in laparoscopic procedures. There was one (5 %) significant complication in each group. Mean length of hospital stay was 3.1 (±2 SD) and 3.3 (±1.3 SD) days for the robotic-assisted and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The subjective benefit rate was the same in both groups: 16/20 (80 %). One patient in the robotic-assisted group continued to have symptoms of obstructed defecation, and there was one recurrence of prolapse in the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is safe, feasible and not more time consuming than the laparoscopic technique even at the beginning of the learning curve. The short-term results are comparable with those of laparoscopy. We found no arguments to support the routine use of robotic assistance in rectopexy operations.