Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2016
Anatomical and functional changes to the pelvic floor after robotic versus laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a randomised study.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Guideline
- Robot-assisted surgery in thoracic and visceral indications: an updated systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Pooled it
- Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial.Techniques in coloproctology · 2019Trial
- Mesh rectopexy in rectal prolapse: toward consensus or continued controversy?Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- The influence of sacrocolporectopexy on pelvic anatomy assessed in an upright position using MRI.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- Ventral mesh rectopexy. Does a descending perineum impact functional results and quality of life?Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- Using a modified Delphi process to explore international surgeon-reported benefits of robotic-assisted surgery to perform abdominal rectopexy.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Article
- A quantitative study to explore functional outcomes following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2022Article
- Article
- Long-term outcomes of robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: Functional Outcomes after Surgery.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2018Article
- Robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a single-institution experience.Techniques in coloproctology · 2017Article
- Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for obstructive defecation syndrome: still the way to go?International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo compare the effect of laparoscopic and robot-assisted ventral rectopexy for posterior compartment procidentia on the pelvic floor anatomy and function.
methodsA 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.
resultsAfter 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.
conclusionVentral 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.