Observational studyTechniques in coloproctology2026
Laparoscopic and robotic ventral rectopexy for posterior compartment disorders: a multicentric study in a gynecological setting.
Observational study in Techniques in coloproctology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to evaluate postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive ventral rectopexy (VRP) performed for posterior compartment defects in a gynecological setting, according to laparoscopic (L-VRP) or robotic (R-VRP) approaches.
methodsWomen with symptomatic posterior compartment defects, including enterocele, rectal prolapse, and rectocele, who underwent L-VRP or R-VRP, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome was the evaluation of functional outcomes at ≥ 6-month follow-up; secondary outcomes included anatomical results, peri- and postoperative complications, and predictors of recurrence, postoperative constipation, and anal incontinence.
resultsA total of 102 women were included, 60 in the L-VRP group and 42 in the R-VRP group. Anterior sacrocolpopexy was performed in 70.6% of women (72/102). At a mean of 18-month follow-up, anorectal symptoms rate, constipation [L-VRP (17.7 ± 5.5) versus (2.5 ± 3.6): p < 0.001; R-VRP (15.2 ± 5.4) versus (2.6 ± 4.6): p < 0.001], and incontinence [L-VRP (11.6 ± 4.6) versus (1.1 ± 3.1): p < 0.001; R-VRP (10.7 ± 5.1) versus (1.2 ± 2.2): p < 0.001] Wexner scores significantly improved without difference according to the surgical route (p > 0.05). Posterior prolapse relapse was 1.0% (1/101), without difference between groups [L-VRP (1.7%;1/60) versus R-VRP (0%;0/41); p = 0.99]. Other anatomical and functional outcomes did not significantly differ between groups. One woman in L-VRP group (1.0%; 1/101) required the resection of the mesh for infection of the implanted material. No predictive factors emerged at multivariate analysis.
conclusionsMinimally invasive VRP was associated with significant short- to mid-term anatomical and functional improvement and a low rate of perioperative complications. No statistically significant differences were observed between laparoscopic and robotic approaches; however, the study was not powered to demonstrate equivalence, and longer follow-up is required to assess durability and delayed mesh-related complications.
trial registrationDIPUSVSP-27-07-2087 retrospectively registered.
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.