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

AIM: The development of robotic assistance has made dissection and suturing in the deep pelvis much easier. The augmented quality of the images and the articulation of the robotic arms have also enabled a more precise dissection. The aim of this study is to present the data on robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy procedures in a university hospital and examine the literature in terms of mesh erosion. METHOD: The electronic databases Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane were searched. Studies from January 2004 until January 2023 in the English language were included. Studies which included fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were included. Mesh erosion rates following laparoscopic or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were measured. RESULTS: Overall, the systematic review presents 5911 patients from 43 studies who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compared with 746 patients treated with robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy from six studies and our centre. Mesh erosion was rare in both groups; however, the prevalence was greater in the laparoscopy group (0.90% vs. 0.27%). CONCLUSION: The mesh erosion rates are very low with robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy. For precise results, more studies and experience in robotic surgery are required.

Comparison of propofol-based sedation regimens administered during colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The ideal sedative agent for endoscopic procedures should allow a rapid modification of the sedation level and should not have any adverse effects. AIM: To evaluate and compare the efficacy, safety, cost and patient satisfaction of some propofol-based sedation regimens administered during colonoscopy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred twenty one patients scheduled for elective outpatient colonoscopy with conscious sedation were randomized to four groups to evaluate the administration of dexmedetomidine, sufentanil, meperidine and midazolam in combination with propofol to maintain sedation during the procedure. Evaluated outcomes were efficacy, safety, cost and patient satisfaction of sedation procedures. RESULTS: Patients receiving dexmedetomidine achieved a higher degree of sedation when compared with the other groups (p < 0.05). The lapse to recover protective reflexes and motor function, was significantly shorter in groups receiving dexmedetomidine or sufentanil than in groups receiving meperidine or midazolam (p < 0.05). There were no differences between groups in pre-sedation and post-sedation neurophysiologic performance, measured by the Trail Making A and B tests. CONCLUSIONS: Sedation for endoscopy can be safely and effectively accomplished with low doses of propofol combined with dexmedetomidine, intranasal sufentanil, IV meperidine and IV meperidine with midazolam.

Comparison of propofol-based sedation regimens administered during colonoscopy / Comparación de protocolos de sedación basados en propofol para obtener sedación durante endoscopias

Background: The ideal sedative agent for endoscopic procedures should allow a rapid modification ofthe sedation level and should not have any adverse effects. Aim: To evaluate and compare the efficacy, safety, cost and patient satisfaction of some propofol-based sedation regimens administered during colonoscopy. Material and Methods: One hundred twenty one patients scheduled for elective outpatient colonoscopy with conscious sedation were randomized to four groups to evaluate the administration of dexmedetomidine, sufentanil, meperidine and midazolam in combination with propofol to maintain sedation during the procedure. Evaluated outcomes were efficacy, safety, cost and patient satisfaction of sedation procedures. Results: Patients receiving dexmedetomidine achieved a higher degree of sedation when compared with the other groups (p < 0.05). The lapse to recoverprotective reflexes and motor function, was significantly shorter in groups receiving dexmedetomidine or sufentanil than in groups receiving meperidine or midazolam (p < 0.05). Therewere no differences between groups in pre-sedation and post-sedation neurophysiologic performance, measured by the Trail MakingA and B tests. Conclusions: Sedation for endoscopy can be safely and effectively accomplished with low doses of propofol combined with dexmedetomidine, intranasal sufentanil, IV meperidine and IV meperidine with midazolam.

Antecedentes: El protocolo de sedación ideal para procedimientos endoscópi-cos es aquel que permita efectuar modificaciones rápidas del nivel de sedación y no tenga efectos secundarios. Objetivo: Comparar la eficacia, seguridad, costos y satisfacción del paciente con protocolos de sedación basados en propofol, durante colonoscopias. Material y Métodos: Ciento veinte pacientes programados para una colonoscopia fueron aleatorizados en cuatro grupos en que se evaluó la administración de dexmedetomidina, sufentanil, meperidina y midazolam en combinación con propofol, para mantener la sedación durante el procedimiento. Se evaluó la eficacia, seguridad, costo y satisfacción del paciente con los diferentes protocolos de sedación. Resultados: Los pacientes que recibieron dexmedetomidina, alcanzaron un mayor nivel de sedación que el resto de los grupos. El lapso necesario para recuperar reflejos y funciones motoras protectoras, fue significativamente menor en los grupos que recibieron dexmedetomidina o sufentanil comparado con los grupos que recibieron meperidina o midazolam (p < 0,05). No hubo diferencias entre los grupos en la capacidad neuro-cognitiva, medida con los Tests de Reitan A y B, antes o después de la sedación. Conclusiones: Se puede obtener una buena sedación para endoscopia combinando dosis bajas de propofol con dexmedetomidina, sufentanil intranasal, meperidina endovenosa con o sin midazolam.