ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2022
Mid-term functional and quality of life outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: multicenter comparative matched-pair analyses.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Guideline
- Surgical outcomes on health-related quality of life in rectal prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Pooled 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
- Beyond stapled transanal rectal resectionWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Review
- The Japan Society of Coloproctology Practice Guidelines for Fecal Incontinence 2024 (Revised Second Edition).Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2026Review
- Outcomes of minimally invasive approaches to rectopexy: laparoscopic versus robotic.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- 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
- Ventral mesh rectopexy. Does a descending perineum impact functional results and quality of life?Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- 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
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare patients' mid-term functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes following robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR).
methodsThe data of consecutive female patients who underwent minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy for external or symptomatic internal rectal prolapse at 3 hospitals in Finland between January 2011 and December 2016 were retrospectively collected. Patients were matched by age and diagnosis at a 1:1 ratio. A disease-related symptom questionnaire was sent to all living patients at follow-up in July 2018.
resultsAfter a total of 401 patients (RVMR, n = 187; LVMR, n = 214) were matched, 152 patients in each group were included in the final analyses. The median follow-up times were 3.3 (range 1.6-7.4) years and 3.0 (range 1.6-7.6) years for the RVMR and LVMR groups, respectively. The postoperative QoL measures did not differ between the groups. Compared with the LVMR group, the RVMR group had lower postoperative Wexner Incontinence Score (median 5 vs. median 8; p < 0.001), experienced significant ongoing incontinence symptoms less often (30.6% vs. 49.0%; p < 0.001) and reported less postoperative faecal incontinence discomfort evaluated with the visual analogue scale (median 11 vs. median 39; p = 0.005). RVMR patients had a shorter hospital stay (2.2 days vs. 3.8 days; p < 0.001) but experienced more frequent de novo pelvic pain (31.8% vs. 11.8%; p < 0.001).
conclusionRVMR and LVMR patients had equal functional and QoL outcomes. Those who underwent RVMR had lower mid-term anal incontinence symptom scores but suffered more frequent de novo pelvic pain.
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.