AIM: Function, morbidity and recurrence of symptoms after robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) were compared. METHOD: Forty-four patients operated on for PFD with RVMR were compared with 74 of 144 patients who had had LVMR performed between 2008 and 2011. The groups were matched for age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists status and previous hysterectomy. The same surgical technique and type of mesh were used. Early postoperative morbidity and function [obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS), incontinence scores (CCF) and sexual activity] were compared. RESULTS: Operation time was longer in RVMR compared with LVMR (191 ± 26 vs 163 ± 39 min; P = 0.0002). RVMR showed less blood loss (8 ± 34 vs 42 ± 88 ml; P = 0.012) and fewer early complications (2% vs 11%; P = 0.019). ODS and CCF scores improved in both groups. Patients after RVMR reported a better improvement in digitation, straining and satisfaction after defaecation. There was a statistically significant difference in the postoperative ODS score in favour of RVMR (P = 0.004). Sexually active patients in both groups reported a similar improvement. There was no difference in early recurrence (P = 0.692). CONCLUSION: Although not a randomized comparison, this study shows that ventral mesh rectopexy performed by the robot was followed by better function then LVMR. Colorectal Disease
AIM: Function, morbidity and recurrence of symptoms after robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) were compared. METHOD: Forty-four patients operated on for PFD with RVMR were compared with 74 of 144 patients who had had LVMR performed between 2008 and 2011. The groups were matched for age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists status and previous hysterectomy. The same surgical technique and type of mesh were used. Early postoperative morbidity and function [obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS), incontinence scores (CCF) and sexual activity] were compared. RESULTS: Operation time was longer in RVMR compared with LVMR (191 ± 26 vs 163 ± 39 min; P = 0.0002). RVMR showed less blood loss (8 ± 34 vs 42 ± 88 ml; P = 0.012) and fewer early complications (2% vs 11%; P = 0.019). ODS and CCF scores improved in both groups. Patients after RVMR reported a better improvement in digitation, straining and satisfaction after defaecation. There was a statistically significant difference in the postoperative ODS score in favour of RVMR (P = 0.004). Sexually active patients in both groups reported a similar improvement. There was no difference in early recurrence (P = 0.692). CONCLUSION: Although not a randomized comparison, this study shows that ventral mesh rectopexy performed by the robot was followed by better function then LVMR. Colorectal Disease
Authors: Amir Szold; Roberto Bergamaschi; Ivo Broeders; Jenny Dankelman; Antonello Forgione; Thomas Langø; Andreas Melzer; Yoav Mintz; Salvador Morales-Conde; Michael Rhodes; Richard Satava; Chung-Ngai Tang; Ramon Vilallonga Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jan J van Iersel; Tim J C Paulides; Paul M Verheijen; John W Lumley; Ivo A M J Broeders; Esther C J Consten Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Rao K Mehmood; Jody Parker; L Bhuvimanian; Eyas Qasem; Ahmed A Mohammed; Muhammad Zeeshan; Kirsten Grugel; Paul Carter; Shakil Ahmed Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 2.571