Johanna K Mäkelä-Kaikkonen1,2, Tero T Rautio3,4, Sari Koivurova5, Eija Pääkkö6, Pasi Ohtonen3,4, Fausto Biancari3,4, Jyrki T Mäkelä3,4. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Gastroenterological Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, PL 21, 90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland. johanna.makela-kaikkonen@ppshp.fi. 2. Center of Surgical Research, Medical Research Center, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland. johanna.makela-kaikkonen@ppshp.fi. 3. Department of Surgery, Division of Gastroenterological Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, PL 21, 90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland. 4. Center of Surgical Research, Medical Research Center, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Oulu, Oulu, Finland. 6. Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To compare the effect of laparoscopic and robot-assisted ventral rectopexy for posterior compartment procidentia on the pelvic floor anatomy and function. METHODS: A prospective randomised single-centre study was carried out of 29 female patients, who underwentrobot-assisted or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexyfor external or internal rectal prolapse with symptoms of obstructive defecation and/or faecal incontinence. Anatomical changes were measured by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) and magnetic resonance defecography. Functional changes were evaluated using symptom questionnaires before and 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: After rectopexy, changes in POP-Q measurements were statistically significant for points Ap, Bp, C, D and Ba. The descent of the anorectum and cervix/vaginal cuff during straining were significantly reduced with regard to the reference line (mean, -10.4 ± 14.9 mm, p = 0.001) and (-13.3 ± 18.1 mm, p < 0.001) respectively. Pelvic organ mobility (POM) was reduced statistically significantly for the posterior (mean, -16.6 ± 20.8 mm, p < 0.001) and apical compartments (mean, -13.1 ± 14.8, p < 0.001). The PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and PISQ-12 questionnaires showed statistically significant improvement of symptoms and sexual function. No significant differences were observed between the robot-assisted and laparoscopic techniques in terms of anatomical or functional parameters. CONCLUSION: Ventral mesh recto-colpo-sacropexy effectively corrects the anatomy of the posterior compartment, elevates the vaginal apex and reduces pelvic organ mobility of the posterior and middle compartments. The robot-assisted and laparoscopic techniques had similar anatomical and functional outcomes.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To compare the effect of laparoscopic and robot-assisted ventral rectopexy for posterior compartment procidentia on the pelvic floor anatomy and function. METHODS: A prospective randomised single-centre study was carried out of 29 female patients, who underwent robot-assisted or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external or internal rectal prolapse with symptoms of obstructive defecation and/or faecal incontinence. Anatomical changes were measured by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) and magnetic resonance defecography. Functional changes were evaluated using symptom questionnaires before and 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: After rectopexy, changes in POP-Q measurements were statistically significant for points Ap, Bp, C, D and Ba. The descent of the anorectum and cervix/vaginal cuff during straining were significantly reduced with regard to the reference line (mean, -10.4 ± 14.9 mm, p = 0.001) and (-13.3 ± 18.1 mm, p < 0.001) respectively. Pelvic organ mobility (POM) was reduced statistically significantly for the posterior (mean, -16.6 ± 20.8 mm, p < 0.001) and apical compartments (mean, -13.1 ± 14.8, p < 0.001). The PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and PISQ-12 questionnaires showed statistically significant improvement of symptoms and sexual function. No significant differences were observed between the robot-assisted and laparoscopic techniques in terms of anatomical or functional parameters. CONCLUSION: Ventral mesh recto-colpo-sacropexy effectively corrects the anatomy of the posterior compartment, elevates the vaginal apex and reduces pelvic organ mobility of the posterior and middle compartments. The robot-assisted and laparoscopic techniques had similar anatomical and functional outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Magnetic resonance defecography; POP-Q; Pelvic floor dysfunction; Pelvic organ mobility; Robot-assisted procedure; Ventral rectopexy
Authors: Sergio Maeso; Mercedes Reza; Julio A Mayol; Juan A Blasco; Mercedes Guerra; Elena Andradas; María N Plana Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Robin M F van der Weiden; Elena Rociu; Guido H H Mannaerts; Marcel H A van Hooff; Mark E Vierhout; Mariella I J Withagen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: J Mäkelä-Kaikkonen; T Rautio; K Klintrup; H Takala; M Vierimaa; P Ohtonen; J Mäkelä Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Madhulika G Varma; Stacey L Hart; Jeanette S Brown; Jennifer M Creasman; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; David H Thom Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2008-03-14 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: C S Inaba; S Sujatha-Bhaskar; C Y Koh; M D Jafari; S D Mills; J C Carmichael; M J Stamos; A Pigazzi Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Julie Flynn; Jose T Larach; Joseph C H Kong; Satish K Warrier; Alexander Heriot Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: J Mäkelä-Kaikkonen; T Rautio; A Ohinmaa; S Koivurova; P Ohtonen; H Sintonen; J Mäkelä Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 3.781