Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Aug;36(8):1621-1631.
doi: 10.1007/s00384-021-03904-y. Epub 2021 Mar 15.

Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Julie Flynn #  1   2   3 , Jose T Larach #  4   5   6 , Joseph C H Kong  5   7   8 , Satish K Warrier  5   7   8 , Alexander Heriot  5   7   8
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Julie Flynn et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2021 Aug.

Abstract

Introduction: Ventral mesh rectopexy is frequently performed as a means of improving the quality of life for sufferers of rectal prolapse. The minimally invasive approach is highly desirable but can be technically difficult to achieve in the narrow confines of the pelvis. The robotic platform is becoming a more common means of overcoming these difficulties, but evidence of an objective benefit over standard laparoscopy is scarce. This study seeks to review and analyse the data comparing outcomes after robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

Method: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for papers comparing robotic to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Comparable data was pooled for meta-analysis.

Results: Six studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Sample sizes were relatively small, and only two of the studies were randomised. Pooled analysis was possible for data on operating time, complication rates, conversion rates and length of stay in hospital. This showed a non-significant trend towards longer operating times and a statistically significant reduction in length of stay after robotic procedures. There was no significant difference in complication and conversion rates.

Conclusion: The frequent finding of longer operating time for robotic surgery was not confirmed in this study. Shorter length of stay in hospital was seen, with other post-operative outcomes showing no significant difference. More data is needed with cost-benefit analyses to show whether the robotic platform is justified.

Keywords: Colorectal surgery; Rectal prolapse; Robotic surgery; Ventral mesh rectopexy.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. D'Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F (2004) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 91(11):1500–1505. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4779 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Melton GB, Kwaan MR (2013) Rectal prolapse. Surg Clin North Am 93(1):187–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2012.09.010 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Larach JT, Flynn J, Kong J, Waters PS, McCormick JJ, Murphy D, Stevenson A, Warrier SK, Heriot AG (2021) Robotic colorectal surgery in Australia: evolution over a decade. ANZ J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.16554
    1. Keller DS, Zaghiyan K, Mizell JS (2018) Use of robotic technology: a survey of practice patterns of the ASCRS Young Surgeons Committee. Tech Coloproctol 22(9):715–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1862-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources