Robotic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy

  • Kristen RumerEmail author
  • Brooke Gurland


Robotic approach to ventral mesh rectopexy overcomes the technical challenges of low pelvic dissection and suturing in a confined space. Improved visualization can lead to decreased blood loss, fewer complications, lower conversation rates, decreased learning curve, and better functional results. In this chapter we review the operative technique for robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.


Ventral mesh rectopexy Robotic approach VMR Rectal prolapse Internal rectal prolapse Obstructed defecation syndrome 

Supplementary material

Video 10.1

RVMR sacral dissection (MP4 29520 kb)

Video 10.2

Peritoneal flap dissection (MP4 33252 kb)

Video 10.3

Suturing biological graft to the rectum (MOV 260816 kb)

Video 10.4

Fixing biological graft to the sacrum (MP4 125534 kb)

Video 10.5

Suturing colpopexy and rectopexy mesh to the sacrum (MP4 146222 kb)


  1. 1.
    D’Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg. 2004;91(11):1500–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Faucheron JL, Trilling B, Barbois S, Sage PY, Waroquet PA, Reche F. Day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective study. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20(10):695–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Germain A, Perrenot C, Scherrer ML, Ayav C, Brunaud L, Ayav A, et al. Long-term outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients. Color Dis. 2014;16(3):198–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Samaranayake CB, Luo C, Plank AW, Merrie AE, Plank LD, Bissett IP. Systematic review on ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and intussusception. Color Dis. 2010;12(6):504–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gouvas N, Georgiou PA, Agalianos C, Tan E, Tekkis P, Dervenis C, et al. Ventral colporectopexy for overt rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome: a systematic review. Color Dis. 2015;17(2):O34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Consten EC, van Iersel JJ, Verheijen PM, Broeders IA, Wolthuis AM, D’Hoore A. Long-term outcome after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: an observational study of 919 consecutive patients. Ann Surg. 2015;262(5):742–7; discussion 7–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Makela-Kaikkonen JK, Rautio TT, Koivurova S, Paakko E, Ohtonen P, Biancari F, et al. Anatomical and functional changes to the pelvic floor after robotic versus laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a randomised study. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(12):1837–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Hoog DE, Heemskerk J, Nieman FH, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG, Bouvy ND. Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case-control study. Int J Color Dis. 2009;24(10):1201–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mantoo S, Podevin J, Regenet N, Rigaud J, Lehur PA, Meurette G. Is robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy superior to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the management of obstructed defaecation? Color Dis. 2013;15(8):e469–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramage L, Georgiou P, Tekkis P, Tan E. Is robotic ventral mesh rectopexy better than laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation? A meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol. 2015;19(7):381–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rondelli F, Bugiantella W, Villa F, Sanguinetti A, Boni M, Mariani E, et al. Robot-assisted or conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2014;12(Suppl 2):S153–S9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Iersel JJ, Formijne Jonkers HA, Paulides TJC, Verheijen PM, Draaisma WA, Consten ECJ, et al. Robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a 5-year experience at a tertiary referral center. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(11):1215–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mehmood RK, Parker J, Bhuvimanian L, Qasem E, Mohammed AA, Zeeshan M, et al. Short-term outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Is robotic superior? Int J Color Dis. 2014;29(9):1113–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Makela-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Klintrup K, Takala H, Vierimaa M, Ohtonen P, et al. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a matched-pairs study of operative details and complications. Tech Coloproctol. 2014;18(2):151–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Makela-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Paakko E, Biancari F, Ohtonen P, Makela J. Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external or internal rectal prolapse and enterocele: a randomized controlled trial. Color Dis. 2016;18(10):1010–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smart NJ, Pathak S, Boorman P, Daniels IR. Synthetic or biological mesh use in laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy – a systematic review. Color Dis. 2013;15(6):650–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evans C, Stevenson AR, Sileri P, Mercer-Jones MA, Dixon AR, Cunningham C, et al. A multicenter collaboration to assess the safety of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(8):799–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wong MT, Meurette G, Rigaud J, Regenet N, Lehur PA. Robotic versus laparoscopic rectopexy for complex rectocele: a prospective comparison of short-term outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(3):342–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General SurgeryUniversity of StanfordPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations