Mid-term functional and quality of life outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: multicenter comparative matched-pair analyses

被引:8
作者
Laitakari, K. E. [1 ,2 ]
Makela-Kaikkonen, J. K. [1 ,2 ]
Kossi, J. [3 ]
Kairaluoma, M. [4 ]
Koivurova, S. [5 ]
Pollari, L. [1 ,2 ]
Ohtonen, P. [6 ,7 ]
Rautio, T. T. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Oulu Univ Hosp, Dept Surg, Div Gastroenterol, POB 21, Oys Oulu 90029, Finland
[2] Univ Oulu, Med Res Ctr Oulu, Ctr Surg Res, Oulu, Finland
[3] Paijat Hame Cent Hosp, Dept Surg, Lahti, Finland
[4] Keski Suomi Cent Hosp, Dept Surg, Jyvaskyla, Finland
[5] Oulu Univ Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Oulu, Finland
[6] Oulu Univ Hosp, Div Operat Care, Oulu, Finland
[7] Univ Oulu, Res Unit Surg Anesthesia & Intens Care, Oulu, Finland
关键词
Robotic; Laparoscopic; Ventral rectopexy; Rectal prolapse; Incontinence; Obstructed defecation; RECTAL PROLAPSE; SURGERY; MANAGEMENT; SYSTEM;
D O I
10.1007/s10151-021-02563-z
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background The aim of this study was to compare patients' mid-term functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes following robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). Methods The data of consecutive female patients who underwent minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy for external or symptomatic internal rectal prolapse at 3 hospitals in Finland between January 2011 and December 2016 were retrospectively collected. Patients were matched by age and diagnosis at a 1:1 ratio. A disease-related symptom questionnaire was sent to all living patients at follow-up in July 2018. Results After a total of 401 patients (RVMR, n = 187; LVMR, n = 214) were matched, 152 patients in each group were included in the final analyses. The median follow-up times were 3.3 (range 1.6-7.4) years and 3.0 (range 1.6-7.6) years for the RVMR and LVMR groups, respectively. The postoperative QoL measures did not differ between the groups. Compared with the LVMR group, the RVMR group had lower postoperative Wexner Incontinence Score (median 5 vs. median 8; p < 0.001), experienced significant ongoing incontinence symptoms less often (30.6% vs. 49.0%; p < 0.001) and reported less postoperative faecal incontinence discomfort evaluated with the visual analogue scale (median 11 vs. median 39; p = 0.005). RVMR patients had a shorter hospital stay (2.2 days vs. 3.8 days; p < 0.001) but experienced more frequent de novo pelvic pain (31.8% vs. 11.8%; p < 0.001). Conclusion RVMR and LVMR patients had equal functional and QoL outcomes. Those who underwent RVMR had lower mid-term anal incontinence symptom scores but suffered more frequent de novo pelvic pain.
引用
收藏
页码:253 / 260
页数:8
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]   Robotic vs. laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception: a systematic review [J].
Albayati, S. ;
Chen, P. ;
Morgan, M. J. ;
Toh, J. W. T. .
TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2019, 23 (06) :529-535
[2]   Set-up and statistical validation of a new scoring system for obstructed defaecation syndrome [J].
Altomare, D. F. ;
Spazzafumo, L. ;
Rinaldi, M. ;
Dodi, G. ;
Ghiselli, R. ;
Piloni, V. .
COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2008, 10 (01) :84-88
[3]   Early results of one-year robotic surgery using the Da Vinci system to perform advanced laparoscopic procedures [J].
Ayav, A ;
Bresler, L ;
Brunaud, L ;
Boissel, P .
JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2004, 8 (06) :720-726
[4]  
Cadière GB, 2001, WORLD J SURG, V25, P1467
[5]   Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients [J].
D'Hoore, A. ;
Penninckx, F. .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2006, 20 (12) :1919-1923
[6]   Day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective study [J].
Faucheron, J. -L. ;
Trilling, B. ;
Barbois, S. ;
Sage, P. -Y. ;
Waroquet, P. -A. ;
Reche, F. .
TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2016, 20 (10) :695-700
[7]   Early experiences of endoscopic procedures in general surgery assisted by a computer-enhanced surgical system [J].
Hashizume, M ;
Shimada, M ;
Tomikawa, M ;
Ikeda, Y ;
Takahashi, I ;
Abe, R ;
Koga, F ;
Gotoh, N ;
Konishi, K ;
Maehara, S ;
Sugimachi, K .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2002, 16 (08) :1187-1191
[8]   Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial [J].
Makela-Kaikkonen, J. ;
Rautio, T. ;
Ohinmaa, A. ;
Koivurova, S. ;
Ohtonen, P. ;
Sintonen, H. ;
Makela, J. .
TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2019, 23 (05) :461-470
[9]   Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external or internal rectal prolapse and enterocele: a randomized controlled trial [J].
Makela-Kaikkonen, J. ;
Rautio, T. ;
Paakko, E. ;
Biancari, F. ;
Ohtonen, P. ;
Makela, J. .
COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2016, 18 (10) :1010-1015
[10]   Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a matched-pairs study of operative details and complications [J].
Makela-Kaikkonen, J. ;
Rautio, T. ;
Klintrup, K. ;
Takala, H. ;
Vierimaa, M. ;
Ohtonen, P. ;
Makela, J. .
TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2014, 18 (02) :151-155