Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse
INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy is considered the standard of care in the surgical management of rectal prolapse syndromes in fit patients. We aimed to investigate the outcomes after robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVR) and compare them with our laparoscopic series (LVR). Additionally, we report the learning curve of RVR. As the financial aspect for the use of a robotic platform remains an important obstacle to allow generalized adoption, cost-effectiveness was also evaluated.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospectively maintained data set including 149 consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive ventral rectopexy between December 2015 and April 2021 was reviewed. The results after a median follow-up of 32 months were analyzed. Additionally, a thorough assessment of the economic aspect was performed.
RESULTS: On a total of 149 consecutive patients 72 underwent a LVR and 77 underwent a RVR. Median operative time was comparable for both groups (98 min (RVR) vs. 89 min (LVR); p = 0.16). Learning curve showed that an experienced colorectal surgeon required approximately 22 cases in stabilizing the operative time for RVR. Overall functional results were similar in both groups. There were no conversions or mortality. There was, however, a significant difference (p < 0.01) in hospital stay in favor of the robotic group (1 day vs. 2 days). The overall cost of RVR was higher than LVR.
CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study shows that RVR is a safe and feasible alternative for LVR. With specific adjustments in surgical technique and robotic materials, we developed a cost-effective way of performing RVR.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:124 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Acta chirurgica Belgica - 124(2024), 2 vom: 31. März, Seite 91-98 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Chaoui, Ahmed M [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 12.03.2024 Date Revised 12.03.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1080/00015458.2023.2191073 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM35410988X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM35410988X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240312233009.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1080/00015458.2023.2191073 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1324.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM35410988X | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)36905354 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Chaoui, Ahmed M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 12.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 12.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy is considered the standard of care in the surgical management of rectal prolapse syndromes in fit patients. We aimed to investigate the outcomes after robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVR) and compare them with our laparoscopic series (LVR). Additionally, we report the learning curve of RVR. As the financial aspect for the use of a robotic platform remains an important obstacle to allow generalized adoption, cost-effectiveness was also evaluated | ||
| 520 | |a PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospectively maintained data set including 149 consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive ventral rectopexy between December 2015 and April 2021 was reviewed. The results after a median follow-up of 32 months were analyzed. Additionally, a thorough assessment of the economic aspect was performed | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: On a total of 149 consecutive patients 72 underwent a LVR and 77 underwent a RVR. Median operative time was comparable for both groups (98 min (RVR) vs. 89 min (LVR); p = 0.16). Learning curve showed that an experienced colorectal surgeon required approximately 22 cases in stabilizing the operative time for RVR. Overall functional results were similar in both groups. There were no conversions or mortality. There was, however, a significant difference (p < 0.01) in hospital stay in favor of the robotic group (1 day vs. 2 days). The overall cost of RVR was higher than LVR | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study shows that RVR is a safe and feasible alternative for LVR. With specific adjustments in surgical technique and robotic materials, we developed a cost-effective way of performing RVR | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Colorectal | |
| 650 | 4 | |a pelvic floor | |
| 650 | 4 | |a rectopexy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a robotic | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chaoui, Ismaël |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Olivier, Frederick |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Geers, Joachim |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Abasbassi, Mohamed |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Acta chirurgica Belgica |d 1946 |g 124(2024), 2 vom: 31. März, Seite 91-98 |w (DE-627)NLM000114294 |x 0001-5458 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:124 |g year:2024 |g number:2 |g day:31 |g month:03 |g pages:91-98 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00015458.2023.2191073 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 124 |j 2024 |e 2 |b 31 |c 03 |h 91-98 | ||