ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Long-term outcomes of robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Guideline
- Mesh-associated complications in minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Could robotic-assisted surgery reduce mesh-related complications after ventral mesh rectopexy? Experience of a tertiary centre and systematic review of the literature.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Pooled it
- Mesh-related complications and recurrence after ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic versus biologic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Pooled it
- Laparoscopic and robotic ventral rectopexy for posterior compartment disorders: a multicentric study in a gynecological setting.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Observational
- 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
- Robot-assisted mesh rectosacropexy and sigmoid colon resection for obstructive defecation syndrome: a two-stage surgical approach.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: the PEXITY study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- 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
- Technical modifications for cost optimization in robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy: an initial experience.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- 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
- Advantages of robotic surgery in the treatment of complex pelvic organs prolapse.Updates in surgery · 2021Article
- Redo ventral rectopexy: is it worthwhile?Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNowadays in Europe, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is the gold standard treatment of external rectal prolapse (ERP). The benefits of robot ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) are not clearly defined. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the long-term results of RVMR. The secondary objective was to determine predictive factors of recurrence.
designMonocentric, retrospective study. Data, both pre-operative and peri-operative, were collected, and follow-up data were assessed prospectively by a telephone questionnaire. The study was performed in a tertiary referral center.
methodsBetween August 2007 and August 2017, we evaluate all consecutive patients who underwent RVMR for ERP by three different surgeons. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate perceived by patients. Secondary outcome were functional results based on Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom score for constipation and Wexner score for incontinence, compared before and after surgery.
resultsDuring the study period 96 patients (86 women) underwent RVMR. The mean age was 62.3 years (range 16-90). Twelve patients had a history of ERP repair. Sixty-nine patients were analyzed for long-term outcomes with a mean follow-up of 37 months (range 2.3-92 months). Recurrence rate was 12.5%. After surgery, constipation was significantly reduced: 44 patients were constipated before surgery versus 23 after surgery. Six patients described de novo constipation (6.25%). Fecal incontinence was significantly reduced: 59 patients were incontinent before surgery versus 14 after surgery. No predictive factor for recurrence was identified after multivariate analysis. No mesh related complications were related.
conclusionsIn conclusion, RVMR presents good long-term functional result and a recurrence rate similar to LVMR as published in the literature. The rate of mesh related complications seems lower.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31183789What 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.