Trial reportTechniques in coloproctology2019
Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial.
Trial report in Techniques in coloproctology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 6 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 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
- A systematic review of full economic evaluations of robotic-assisted surgery in thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Pooled it
- Meta-analysis on current status, efficacy, and safety of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse treatment: can robotic surgery become the gold standard?International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes of combined versus isolated robotic rectal and pelvic organ prolapse repair: A multicentre prospective cohort study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026Article
- Mesh rectopexy in rectal prolapse: toward consensus or continued controversy?Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Outcomes of minimally invasive approaches to rectopexy: laparoscopic versus robotic.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Review
- Comparative clinical outcomes of ventral rectopexy versus STARR in the management of obstructed defecation syndrome: a clinical review.Updates in surgery · 2025Review
- Scoping review of indications for robotic ventral mesh rectopexy: addressing variability in patient selection.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Economic Evaluations of Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Methods, Challenges and Opportunities.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Review
- Laparoscopic vs. robotic sacrocolpopexy: influence of age, BMI, and parity on perioperative outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Comparative study of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus perineal stapler resection for external full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients: enhanced outcomes and reduced recurrence rates-a retrospective cohort study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Article
- Ventral mesh rectopexy. Does a descending perineum impact functional results and quality of life?Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- A network meta-analysis of surgical treatments of complete rectal prolapse.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Review
- Is robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for pelvic floor disorders better than laparoscopic approach at the beginning of the experience? A retrospective single-center study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Article
- Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Technical modifications for cost optimization in robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy: an initial experience.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to assess, whether robotic-assistance in ventral mesh rectopexy adds benefit to laparoscopy in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cost-effectiveness and anatomical and functional outcome.
methodsA prospective randomized study was conducted on patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for internal or external rectal prolapse at Oulu University Hospital, Finland, recruited in February-May 2012. The primary outcomes were health care costs from the hospital perspective and HRQoL measured by the 15D-instrument. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome assessed by pelvic organ prolapse quantification method and functional outcome by symptom questionnaires at 24 months follow-up.
resultsThere were 30 females (mean age 62.5 years, SD 11.2), 16 in the RVMR group and 14 in the LVMR group. The surgery-related costs of the RVMR were 1.5 times higher than the cost of the LVMR. At 3 months the changes in HRQoL were 'much better' (RVMR) and 'slightly better' (LVMR) but declined in both groups at 2 years (RVMR vs. LVMR, p > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness was poor at 2 years for both techniques, but if the outcomes were assumed to last for 5 years, it improved significantly. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the RVMR compared to LVMR was €39,982/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 2 years and improved to €16,707/QALYs at 5 years. Posterior wall anatomy was restored similarly in both groups. The subjective satisfaction rate was 87% in the RVMR group and 69% in the LVMR group (p = 0.83).
conclusionsAlthough more expensive than LVMR in the short term, RVMR is cost-effective in long-term. The minimally invasive VMR improves pelvic floor function, sexual function and restores posterior compartment anatomy. The effect on HRQoL is minor, with no differences between techniques.
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.