ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2025
Scoping review of indications for robotic ventral mesh rectopexy: addressing variability in patient selection.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Guideline
- Comparative clinical outcomes of ventral rectopexy versus STARR in the management of obstructed defecation syndrome: a clinical review.Updates in surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVentral mesh rectopexy (VMR) has gained popularity as a surgical solution for rectal prolapse. However, significant variability exists in patient selection criteria, preoperative evaluation, and reporting standards. This scoping review analyzes indications for robotic VMR (RVMR) and highlights areas requiring further standardization.
methodsThe review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were completed through December 4, 2024. Studies reporting on RVMR were screened in a three-step process, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Key data extracted included patient demographics, indications, preoperative workup, and surgical details. Superseded studies, reviews, and non-relevant articles were excluded.
resultsOf 783 articles identified, 24 studies comprising 930 patients met inclusion criteria. External rectal prolapse was the most common indication (47%), followed by intussusception (38%), rectocele (9%), combined abnormalities (5%), and enterocele (1%). Preoperative imaging was inconsistently reported, with only 67% of studies describing imaging protocols. Symptom-based indications using standardized scoring systems were rare (17%). Synthetic mesh was used in 87% of cases. RVMR showed favorable functional outcomes, with low recurrence and complication rates.
conclusionsSignificant heterogeneity exists in indications and preoperative evaluation for RVMR, limiting comparability across studies. While evidence supports its safety and efficacy, future research should focus on standardizing selection criteria and evaluating long-term outcomes.
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.