Xu Bao1, Huan Wang2, Weiliang Song3, Yuzhuo Chen3, Ying Luo4. 1. Department of General Surgery, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Extracorporeal Life Support for Critical Diseases, Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Tianjin Third Center Hospital, No.83, Jintang Road, Hedong District, Tianjin, 300170, China. baoxu209@126.com. 2. School of nursing, Tianjin Medical University, No.22, Qixiangtai Road, Heping District, Tianjin, 300070, China. 3. Department of General Surgery, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Extracorporeal Life Support for Critical Diseases, Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Tianjin Third Center Hospital, No.83, Jintang Road, Hedong District, Tianjin, 300170, China. 4. Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Tianjin Third Center Hospital, No.83, Jintang Road, Hedong District, Tianjin, 300170, China.
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.
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.
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: 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: 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
Authors: Jeroen Heemskerk; Dominique E N M de Hoog; Wim G van Gemert; Cor G M I Baeten; Jan Willem M Greve; Nicole D Bouvy Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.585