Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
van Iersel JJ, Paulides TJ, Verheijen PM, Lumley JW, Broeders IA, Consten EC (2016) Current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external and internal rectal prolapse. World J Gastroenterol 22(21):4977–4987. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i21.4977
D'Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F (2004) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 91(11):1500–1505. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4779
Tsunoda A (2020) Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse in the laparoscopic era; a review of the literature. J Anus Rectum Colon 4(3):89–99. https://doi.org/10.23922/jarc.2019-035
Ayav A, Bresler L, Hubert J, Brunaud L, Boissel P (2005) Robotic-assisted pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Surg Endosc 19(9):1200–1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-2257-5
Kamali D, Reddy A, Imam S, Omar K, Jha A, Jha M (2017) Short-term surgical outcomes and patient quality of life between robotic and laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision for adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 99(8):607–613. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2017.0093
Bach C, Miernik A, Schönthaler M (2014) Training in robotics: the learning curve and contemporary concepts in training. Arab J Urol 12(1):58–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2013.10.005
Brunner M, Roth H, Gunther K, Grutzmann R, Matzel KE (2018) Ventral rectopexy with biological mesh: short-term functional results. Int J Color Dis 33(4):449–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-018-2972-3
de Hoog DE, Heemskerk J, Nieman FH, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG, Bouvy ND (2009) 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 24(10):1201–1206
Faucheron JL, Trilling B, Barbois S, Sage PY, Waroquet PA, Reche F (2016) Day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective study. Tech Coloproctol 20(10):695–700
Heemskerk J, de Hoog DE, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND (2007) Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time. Dis Colon Rectum 50(11):1825–1830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-007-9017-2
Laitakari KE, Makela-Kaikkonen JK, Paakko E, Kata I, Ohtonen P, Makela J et al (2020) Restored pelvic anatomy is preserved after laparoscopic and robot-assisted ventral rectopexy: mRI-based 5-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Color Dis 22:1667–1676. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15195
Mäkelä-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Klintrup K, Takala H, Vierimaa M, Ohtonen P, Mäkelä J (2014) Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a matched-pairs study of operative details and complications. Tech Coloproctol 18(2):151–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-013-1042-7
Mäkelä-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Ohinmaa A, Koivurova S, Ohtonen P, Sintonen H, Mäkelä J (2019) Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial. Tech Coloproctol 23(5):461–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-01991-2
Mäkelä-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Pääkkö E, Biancari F, Ohtonen P, Mäkelä J (2016) Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external or internal rectal prolapse and enterocele: a randomized controlled trial. Color Dis: the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland 18(10):1010–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13309
Mantoo S, Podevin J, Regenet N, Rigaud J, Lehur PA, Meurette G (2013) Is robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy superior to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the management of obstructed defaecation? Color Dis : the official journal of the Assoc of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland 15(8):e469–e475. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12251
Mehmood RK, Parker J, Bhuvimanian L, Qasem E, Mohammed AA, Zeeshan M, Grugel K, Carter P, Ahmed S (2014) Short-term outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Is robotic superior? Int J Color Dis 29(9):1113–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1937-4
Ng C, Sutton P, Anderson J, Titu L. (2019) Robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR): a 5-year experience at a single UK pelvic floor unit. 21 (Supplement 2):47. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14770
Ogilvie JW Jr, Saunders RN, Parker J, Luchtefeld MA (2019) Sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis-a propensity-matched comparison of minimally invasive approaches. J Surg Res 243:434–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.06.018
Trilling B, Sage PY, Girard E, Barbois S, Faucheron JL (2017) Day-case robotic-assisted ventral rectopexy is feasible but more expensive and time. Color Dis 19(Supplement 2)(S2)):038. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13798
Wong MT, Meurette G, Rigaud J, Regenet N, Lehur PA (2011) Robotic versus laparoscopic rectopexy for complex rectocele: a prospective comparison of short-term outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 54(3):342–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181f4737e
Faucheron JL, Trilling B, Girard E (2019) Robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a few years until this becomes the gold standard. Tech Coloproctol 23(5):407–409
Miskovic D, Ni M, Wyles SM, Tekkis P, Hanna GB (2012) Learning curve and case selection in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: systematic review and international multicenter analysis of 4852 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 55(12):1300–1310. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e31826ab4dd
Bokhari MB, Patel CB, Ramos-Valadez DI, Ragupathi M, Haas EM (2011) Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 25(3):855–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1281-x
Perrenot C, Germain A, Scherrer ML, Ayav A, Brunaud L, Bresler L (2013) Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 56(7):909–914
Geller EJ, Matthews CA (2013) Impact of robotic operative efficiency on profitability. Am J Obstet Gynecol 209(1):20.e1–20.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.03.030
Funding
This study is supported by Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Commission under grant (grant number: NO.17JCYBJC26100).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Xu Bao analyzed and interpreted the research data and was the major contributor in the preparation and writing of the manuscript. Huan Wang acquired the original data and conducted the data processing of the meta-analysis. Weiliang Song collected the original data and quality assessment and revised the article critically for important intellectual content. Yuzhuo Chen is responsible for the interpretation of data for the work, visualization, and table and figure production. Ying Luo made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study and reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bao, X., Wang, H., Song, W. et al. 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?. Int J Colorectal Dis 36, 1685–1694 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-021-03885-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-021-03885-y