Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36802041›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2023

Technical modifications for cost optimization in robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy: an initial experience.

A A Marra, P Campennì, V De Simone, A Parello, F Litta, C Ratto

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A A MarraProctology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8384-5081
P CampennìProctology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
V De SimoneProctology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
A ParelloProctology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
F LittaProctology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
C RattoProctology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. carloratto@tiscali.it.ORCID 0000-0002-0556-0037
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is considered a valid option in the treatment of rectal prolapse. However, it involves higher costs than the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study is to determine if less expensive robotic surgery for rectal prolapse can be safely performed.

methodsThis study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, from 7 November 2020 to 22 November 2021. The cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources in patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with the da Vinci Xi Surgical Systems was analyzed before and after technical modifications, including the reduction of robotic arms and instruments, and the execution of a double minimal peritoneal incision at the pouch of Douglas and sacral promontory (instead of the traditional inverted J incision).

resultsTwenty-two robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were performed [21 females, 95.5%, median age 62.0 (54.8-70.0) years]. After an initial experience performing traditional robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in four patients, we adopted technical modifications in other cases. No major complication or conversion to open surgery occurred. In total, mean cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources was €6995.5 ± 1058.0, €5912.7 ± 877.0, €2797.6 ± 545.6, and €2608.3 ± 351.5, respectively. Technical modifications allowed a significant reduction in the overall cost of hospitalization (€6604.5 ± 589.5 versus €8755.0 ± 906.4, p = 0.001), number of robotic instruments (3.1 ± 0.2 versus 4.0 ± 0.8 units, p = 0.026), and operating room time (201 ± 26 versus 253 ± 16 min, p = 0.003).

conclusionsConsidering our preliminary results, robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with appropriate technical modifications can be cost-effective and safe.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRectal ProlapseRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSurgical MeshTreatment OutcomeCost analysisRectal prolapseRobotic surgeryVentral mesh rectopexy

Identifiers

PMID36802041
PMCPMC9938509
OpenAlexW4321352062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.