T Keating1, C A Fleming2, A E Brannigan2. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin 7, Ireland. tayakeating@gmail.com. 2. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin 7, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) offers improved visualisation and dexterity compared to laparoscopy. As a result, RAS is considered an attractive option for performing rectopexy, particularly in the confines of the lower pelvis. The aim of this study was to explore the benefits of RAS in rectopexy by analysing the views of a group of surgeons will have published on robotic rectopexy. METHODS: A three-round Delphi process was performed. Combined qualitative, Likert scale and binary responses were utilised in rounds one and two with binary responses seeking overall consensus in round two and three. Particular areas that were studied included: clinical aspects of patient selection, technical aspects of using RAS to perform rectopexy, ergonomic factors, training, and consideration of the 'learning-curve'. Consensus was defined as agreement > 80% among participants. Potential experienced RAS rectopexy surgeons were identified using PubMed where authors of studies reporting outcomes from RAS rectopexy were searched and invited. RESULTS: Twenty surgeons participated from the following countries: France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, and USA. Participants had median operative experience of 75 (range 20-450) rectopexies (all techniques) and 11(range 0-300) robotic-rectopexies for all indications. All participants agreed that patient-reported functional outcomes and improved quality-of-life were the most important outcomes following rectopexy. Participants agreed the most significant benefits offered by RAS for rectopexy were improved precision due to better visualisation (80%), improved dexterity (90%) and improved overall accuracy e.g., for suture placement (90%). Ninety percent agreed that the superior ergonomics of RAS rectopexy improved their performance on several steps of the operation, in particular: mesh fixation (85%) and rectovaginal dissection (80%). Consensus on the learning curve for RAS abdominal rectopexy was not achieved: forty-five percent (n = 9) reported the learning curve as 11-20 cases and 55% (n = 11) as 21-30 cases. CONCLUSIONS: A panel of surgeons who had published on RAS view that it positively improves performance of rectopexy in terms of technical skills, improved dexterity and visualisation and ergonomics.
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) offers improved visualisation and dexterity compared to laparoscopy. As a result, RAS is considered an attractive option for performing rectopexy, particularly in the confines of the lower pelvis. The aim of this study was to explore the benefits of RAS in rectopexy by analysing the views of a group of surgeons will have published on robotic rectopexy. METHODS: A three-round Delphi process was performed. Combined qualitative, Likert scale and binary responses were utilised in rounds one and two with binary responses seeking overall consensus in round two and three. Particular areas that were studied included: clinical aspects of patient selection, technical aspects of using RAS to perform rectopexy, ergonomic factors, training, and consideration of the 'learning-curve'. Consensus was defined as agreement > 80% among participants. Potential experienced RAS rectopexy surgeons were identified using PubMed where authors of studies reporting outcomes from RAS rectopexy were searched and invited. RESULTS: Twenty surgeons participated from the following countries: France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, and USA. Participants had median operative experience of 75 (range 20-450) rectopexies (all techniques) and 11(range 0-300) robotic-rectopexies for all indications. All participants agreed that patient-reported functional outcomes and improved quality-of-life were the most important outcomes following rectopexy. Participants agreed the most significant benefits offered by RAS for rectopexy were improved precision due to better visualisation (80%), improved dexterity (90%) and improved overall accuracy e.g., for suture placement (90%). Ninety percent agreed that the superior ergonomics of RAS rectopexy improved their performance on several steps of the operation, in particular: mesh fixation (85%) and rectovaginal dissection (80%). Consensus on the learning curve for RAS abdominal rectopexy was not achieved: forty-five percent (n = 9) reported the learning curve as 11-20 cases and 55% (n = 11) as 21-30 cases. CONCLUSIONS: A panel of surgeons who had published on RAS view that it positively improves performance of rectopexy in terms of technical skills, improved dexterity and visualisation and ergonomics.
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 C Bolger; M P Broe; M A Zarog; A Looney; K McKevitt; D Walsh; S Giri; C Peirce; J C Coffey Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-09-19 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