SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2019
Robotic vs. laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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 19 papers.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Outcomes of minimally invasive approaches to rectopexy: laparoscopic versus robotic.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- High and low take-off external prolapse phenotypes can be characterised preoperatively on defaecation proctography.Techniques in coloproctology · 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
- Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the oldest old is safe: the race is run.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Article
- External rectal prolapse: more than meets the eye.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- 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
- 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
- Current diagnostic tools and treatment modalities for rectal prolapse.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
- Mid-term functional and quality of life outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: multicenter comparative matched-pair analyses.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Article
- External rectal prolapse: abdominal or perineal repair for men? A retrospective cohort study.Gastroenterology report · 2022Article
- Update on Robotic Rectal Prolapse Treatment.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- 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
- Abdominal ventral rectopexy with colectomy for obstructed defecation syndrome: An alternative option for selected patients.World journal of clinical cases · 2020Article
- Changing Trend of Rectal Prolapse Surgery in the Era of the Minimally Invasive Surgery.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2019Article
- Fecal incontinence and rectal prolapse.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is a treatment with promising results in external rectal prolapse, rectal intussusception, and rectocele. Because of the emergence of robotic-assisted surgery and the technical advantage it provides, we examined the potential role and place of robotic surgery in ventral rectopexy.
methodsMEDLINE, PubMed, and other databases were searched, by two independent reviewers, to identify studies comparing robotic to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. The primary outcome was the rate of unplanned conversion to open. The secondary outcomes were morbidity, length of hospital stay and recurrence rate.
resultsFive studies (4% male, n = 259) met the inclusion criteria. All 5 studies reported on conversion rate and showed no significant difference between the conversion rate of robotic and laparoscopic groups [OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.09-3.77)]. Robotic surgery was also similar to laparoscopic surgery for both morbidity [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.34-1.48)] and recurrence rate [OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-1.75)]. Operative time was longer in the robotic group with a MWD of 22.88 minutes (CI 5.73-40.04, p < 0.0007). There was a statistically significant reduction in length of stay with robotic surgery [mean difference - 0.36 days (95% CI - 0.66 to - 0.07)].
conclusionsThis systematic review shows that robotic-assisted ventral rectopexy requires longer operative time with no significant added benefit over laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. The conversion rate was low in both groups and the trends to benefit did not reach statistical significance. More studies are required to clarify whether the potential technical advantage of robotic surgery in ventral rectopexy translates to an improvement in clinical outcome.
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.