Comparative study of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus perineal stapler resection for external full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients: enhanced outcomes and reduced recurrence rates-a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In elderly patients with external full-thickness rectal prolapse (EFTRP), the exact differences in postoperative recurrence and functional outcomes between laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and perineal stapler resection (PSR) have not yet been investigated. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study on 330 elderly patients divided into LVMR group (n = 250) and PSR (n = 80) from April 2012 to April 2019. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery by Wexner incontinence scale, Altomare constipation scale, and patient satisfaction questionnaire. The primary outcomes were incidence and risk factors for EFTRP recurrence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative incontinence, constipation, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: LVMR was associated with fewer postoperative complications (p < 0.001), lower prolapse recurrence (p < 0.001), lower Wexner incontinence score (p = 0.03), and lower Altomare's score (p = 0.047). Furthermore, LVMR demonstrated a significantly higher surgery-recurrence interval (p < 0.001), incontinence improvement (p = 0.019), and patient satisfaction (p < 0.001) than PSR. Three and 13 patients developed new symptoms in LVMR and PSR, respectively. The predictors for prolapse recurrence were LVMR (associated with 93% risk reduction of recurrence, OR 0.067, 95% CI 0.03-0.347, p = 0.001), symptom duration (prolonged duration was associated with an increased risk of recurrence, OR 1.131, 95% CI 1.036-1.236, p = 0.006), and length of prolapse (increased length was associated with a high recurrence risk (OR = 1.407, 95% CI = 1.197-1.655, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LVMR is safe for EFTRP treatment in elderly patients with low recurrence, and improved postoperative functional outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial.gov (NCT05915936), retrospectively registered on June 14, 2023.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the oldest old is safe: the race is run.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is considered to be the gold standard for managing rectal prolapse. Nevertheless, concerns have been expressed about the use of this procedure in elderly patients. The aim of the current study was to examine the perioperative safety of primary LVMR operations in the oldest old in comparison to younger individuals and to assess our hospital policy of offering LVMR to all patients, regardless of age and morbidity. METHODS: A retrospective study analysed demographic information, operation notes, meshes utilised, operation times, lengths of hospital stay (LOS) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores of patients who underwent LVMR at Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital between 2012 and 2023. RESULTS: Eighty-seven female patients underwent LVMR. Nineteen patients were 80 years of age or older (OLD group); the remaining 65 patients were under the age of 80 (YOUNG group). The difference between the groups in terms of age was statistically significant. ASA scores were not significantly different. No mortality was observed. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of LOS, operation time or morbidity. Moreover, the postoperative morbidity profile was excellent in both groups. CONCLUSION: LVMR seems to be a safe operation for the "oldest old" patients with comorbidity, despite a single-centre, retrospective trial with limited follow-up. The present study suggests abandoning the dogma that "frail patients with rectal prolapse are not suitable for laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy."

Evaluation and Management of Rectal Prolapse.

Rectal prolapse, or procidentia, is a common pathology for the practicing colorectal surgeon. It is associated with lifestyle limiting symptoms for the patient and frequently co-exists with other types of pelvic prolapse making multidisciplinary management key. It is primarily managed with surgical reconstruction. A number of operative approaches exist, and the optimum procedure is varied dependent upon patient characteristics.

Could robotic-assisted surgery reduce mesh-related complications after ventral mesh rectopexy? Experience of a tertiary centre and systematic review of the literature.

AIM: The development of robotic assistance has made dissection and suturing in the deep pelvis much easier. The augmented quality of the images and the articulation of the robotic arms have also enabled a more precise dissection. The aim of this study is to present the data on robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy procedures in a university hospital and examine the literature in terms of mesh erosion. METHOD: The electronic databases Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane were searched. Studies from January 2004 until January 2023 in the English language were included. Studies which included fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were included. Mesh erosion rates following laparoscopic or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were measured. RESULTS: Overall, the systematic review presents 5911 patients from 43 studies who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compared with 746 patients treated with robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy from six studies and our centre. Mesh erosion was rare in both groups; however, the prevalence was greater in the laparoscopy group (0.90% vs. 0.27%). CONCLUSION: The mesh erosion rates are very low with robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy. For precise results, more studies and experience in robotic surgery are required.

An examination of rectal prolapse surgery patients' quality of life and symptoms using patient-reported outcome instruments: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We measured changes in self-reported health and symptoms attributable to rectal prolapse surgery using patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. METHODS: A prospectively recruited cohort of patients scheduled for rectal prolapse repair in Vancouver, Canada between 2013 and 2021 were surveyed before and 6-months after surgery using seven PROs: the EuroQol Five-Dimension Instrument (EQ-5D-5L), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), Pain Intensity, Interference with Enjoyment of Life and General Activity (PEG), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI), and the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale (FIQL). RESULTS: We included 46 participants who reported improvements in health status (EQ-5D-5L; p â€‹< â€‹0.01), pain interference (PEG; p â€‹< â€‹0.01), depressive symptoms (PHQ-9; p â€‹= â€‹0.01), fecal incontinence severity (FISI; p â€‹< â€‹0.01), gastrointestinal quality of life (GIQLI; p â€‹< â€‹0.01), and fecal incontinence quality of life (FIQL) related to lifestyle (p â€‹= â€‹0.02), coping and behaviour (p â€‹= â€‹0.02) and depression and self-perception (p â€‹= â€‹0.01). CONCLUSION: Surgical repair of rectal prolapse improved patients' quality of life with meaningful improvements in fecal incontinence severity and pain, and symptom interference with daily activities.

Mental health disorders as a risk factor in young patients with rectal prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse (RP) typically presents in the elderly, though it can present in younger patients lacking traditional risk factors. The current study compares medical and mental health history, presentation, and outcomes for young and older patients with RP. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective review of patients who underwent abdominal repair of RP between 2005 and 2019. Individuals were dichotomized into two groups based on age greater or less than 40 years. RESULTS: Of 156 patients, 25 were < 40. Younger patients had higher rates of diagnosed mental health disorders (80% vs 41%, p < 0.001), more likely to take SSRIs (p = .02), SNRIs (p = .021), anxiolytics (p = 0.033), and antipsychotics (p < 0.001). Younger patients had lower preoperative incontinence but higher constipation. Both groups had low rates of recurrence (9.1% vs 11.6%, p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Young patients with RP present with higher concomitant mental health diagnoses and represent unique risk factors characterized by chronic straining compared to pelvic floor laxity.

Ventral mesh rectopexy for recurrent rectal prolapse after Altemeier perineal proctosigmoidectomy: feasibility and outcomes.

PURPOSE: Recurrence of rectal prolapse following the Altemeier procedure is reported with rates up to 40%. The optimal surgical management of recurrences has limited data available. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a favored procedure for primary rectal prolapse, but its role in managing recurrences after Altemeier is unclear. VMR for recurrent prolapse involves implanting the mesh on the colon, which has a thinner wall, more active peristalsis, no mesorectum, less peritoneum available for covering the mesh, and potential diverticula. These factors can affect mesh-related complications such as erosion, migration, or infection. This study assessed the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of VMR for recurrent rectal prolapse after the Altemeier procedure. METHODS: We queried our prospectively maintained database between 01/01/2008 and 06/30/2022 for patients who had experienced a recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse following Altemeier's perineal proctosigmoidectomy and subsequently underwent ventral mesh rectopexy. RESULTS: Ten women with a median age of 67 years (range 61) and a median BMI of 27.8 kg/m2 (range 9) were included. Five (50%) had only one Altemeier, and five (50%) had multiple rectal prolapse surgeries, including Altemeier before VMR. No mesh-related complications occurred during a 65-month (range 165) median follow-up period. Three patients (30%) experienced minor postoperative complications unrelated to the mesh. Long-term complications were chronic abdominal pain and incisional hernia in one patient, respectively. One out of five (20%) patients with only one previous prolapse repair had a recurrence, while all patients (100%) with multiple prior repairs recurred. CONCLUSION: Mesh implantation on the colon is possible without adverse reactions. However, high recurrence rates in patients with multiple previous surgeries raise doubts about using VMR for secondary or tertiary recurrences.

Determinants of Dissatisfaction After Laparoscopic Cure of Vaginal and/or Rectal Prolapse using Mesh: a Comprehensive Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The primary objective is to identify determinants of dissatisfaction after surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse ± rectal prolapse, using laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or sacrocolpopexy (LSC) ± ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). The secondary objective is the evaluation of complications and objective/subjective recurrence rates. METHODS: The study performed was a single-surgeon retrospective review of prospectively collected data. LSH/LSC ± VMR were performed between July 2005 and September 2022. Primary investigated outcome was patients' satisfaction, assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score and the bother visual analog scale (VAS) obtained postoperatively (at a 1-month interval and on a 6-month/yearly basis thereafter). We looked for a correlation between the level of satisfaction (as reflected by the VAS) and potential determinants. RESULTS: There were 355 patients with a mean age of 62 ±12 years. Nearly all the patients (94.3%) had a stage 3 or 4 prolapse according to the POP-Q classification. The mean postoperative bother VAS was 1.8, with only 12.7% of patients reporting a bother VAS score ≥ 3/10, indicating a dissatisfaction. PGI-I showed improvement in the vast majority of patients (96.4% scoring 1 to 3). Patients with anal incontinence preoperatively scored higher on the bother VAS postoperatively (r=0.175, p < 0.05). The use of a posterior arm mesh (for posterior vaginal prolapse) correlated with better satisfaction overall (r= -0.178, p = 0.001), whereas the performance of VMR was associated with a bothering sensation (r = 0.232, p < 0.001). A regression analysis confirmed the impact of posterior mesh and VMR on satisfaction levels, with odds of dissatisfaction being 2.18 higher when VMR was combined with LSH/LSC. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior mesh use improves patient satisfaction when the posterior compartment is affected. In patients with concomitant vaginal and rectal prolapse, combining VMR with anterior LSC/LSH appears to negatively impact patients' satisfaction. Preoperative anal incontinence was demonstrated to be a risk factor for postoperative dissatisfaction.

Management of Complete Persistent Rectal Prolapse in Children: A Comparative Study Between Mesh Repair Versus Suturing Rectopexy.

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse is a relatively common, usually self-limiting illness in children. Peak incidence is between 1 and 3 years. The primary treatment of rectal prolapse is non-operative. Surgical intervention is needed in long-standing intractable cases of rectal prolapse, rectal pain/bleeding/ulceration and prolapse that needs frequent manual or difficult reduction. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus laparoscopic suture rectopexy in the management of persistent rectal prolapse in children not responding to conservative management and/or recurrent after sclerotherapy or anal encirclement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four cases were randomised into two groups at the ratio of 1:1, Group 1 patients were managed by laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, whereas Group 2 cases were managed by laparoscopic suture rectopexy. Patients with primary surgical conditions such as anorectal malformations, Hirschsprung's disease, rectal polyps or masses and Ectopia Vesicae were excluded from the study. Inclusion criteria were complete rectal prolapse cases with failed medical treatment for at least 6 months and/or recurrent after injection sclerotherapy or anal encirclement. RESULTS: In the mesh rectopexy group, one case had recurrence in the form of partial prolapse 3 weeks postoperatively which improved 2 months postoperatively with conservative management, one case had bleeding per rectum 2 months postoperatively, stool analysis was done revealing parasitic infestation which was treated medically. In the suture rectopexy group, one case had one attack of bleeding per rectum on the 2nd day postoperatively which resolved spontaneously and one case was readmitted on the 5th day postoperatively for non-bilious vomiting which improved by medical treatment. No recurrent cases of complete rectal prolapse were reported in both groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic rectopexy can be an effective modality for the treatment of refractory complete rectal prolapse in children. It is effective, safe and easy. Although the current study has shown that laparoscopic suture rectopexy and mesh rectopexy have nearly the same results, a larger number of patients are needed to compare more deeply between the two groups.

Core Descriptor Sets for Rectal Prolapse Outcomes Research Using a Modified Delphi Consensus.

BACKGROUND: There is wide variation in prolapse care. OBJECTIVE: To determine core descriptor sets for rectal prolapse to enhance outcomes research. DESIGN: Descriptors for patients undergoing rectal prolapse surgery were generated through a systematic review and expert opinion. Stakeholders were recruited internationally via listserv and social media. Experts were encouraged to consider the minimum descriptors that could be considered during clinical care, and descriptors were grouped into core descriptor sets. Consensus was defined as greater than 70% agreement. SETTING: A 3-round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale based on expert results was distributed via survey. The final interactive meeting used a polling platform. PARTICIPANTS: The Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium interdisciplinary group convened to advance the clinical care of pelvic floor disorders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To achieve expert consensus for core descriptor sets for rectal prolapse using a modified Delphi method. RESULTS: A total of 206 providers participated, with survey response rates of 82% and 88%, respectively. Responders were from North America (56%), Europe (29%), and Latin America, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa (15%). Ninety-one percent of participants identified as colorectal surgeons and 80% reported >5 years of experience (35% reported >15 years). Fifty-seven attendees participated in the final meeting and voted on core descriptor sets. Ninety-three percent of participants agreed that descriptors such as age, BMI, frailty, nutrition, and the American Society of Anesthesiology score correlated to physiologic status. One hundred percent of participants agreed to include baseline bowel function. One hundred percent of participants reported willingness to complete a synoptic operative report. Follow-up intervals 1, 3, and 5 years after surgery (76%) with a collection of recurrence and functional outcomes at those time periods reached an agreement. LIMITATIONS: Individual bias, self-identification of experts, and paucity of knowledge related to rectal prolapse. CONCLUSIONS: This represents the first steps toward international consensus to unify language and data collection processes for rectal prolapse. See Video Abstract . CONJUNTOS DE DESCRIPTORES BSICOS PARA LA INVESTIGACIN DE RESULTADOS DE PROLAPSO RECTAL MEDIANTE UN CONSENSO DELPHI MODIFICADO: ANTECEDENTES:Existe una amplia variación en la atención del prolapso.OBJETIVO:Determinar conjuntos de descriptores básicos para el prolapso rectal para mejorar los resultados de la investigación.DISEÑO:Los descriptores para pacientes sometidos a cirugía de prolapso rectal se generaron a través de una revisión sistemática y la opinión de expertos. Las partes interesadas fueron reclutadas internacionalmente a través de listas de servicio y redes sociales. Se animó a los expertos a considerar los descriptores mínimos que podrían considerarse durante la atención clínica, y los descriptores se agruparon en conjuntos de descriptores básicos. El consenso se definió como > 70% de acuerdo.AJUSTE:Se distribuyó mediante encuesta un proceso Delphi de tres rondas que utiliza una escala Likert de 9 puntos basada en resultados de expertos. La reunión interactiva final utilizó una plataforma de votación.PARTICIPANTES:El grupo interdisciplinario del Consorcio de Trastornos del Suelo Pélvico se reunió para avanzar en la atención clínica de los trastornos del suelo pélvico.MEDIDAS PRINCIPALES DE RESULTADOS:Lograr el consenso de expertos para los conjuntos de descriptores básicos para el prolapso rectal utilizando un método Delphi modificado.RESULTADOS:Participaron 206 proveedores con tasas de respuesta a la encuesta del 82% y 88% respectivamente. Los encuestados procedían de América del Norte (56%), Europa (29%) y América Latina, Asia, Australia, Nueva Zelanda y África (15%). El noventa y uno por ciento se identificó como cirujanos colorrectales y el 80% reportó más de 5 años de experiencia (35% > 15 años). Cincuenta y siete asistentes participaron en la reunión final y votaron sobre conjuntos de descriptores básicos. El noventa y tres por ciento estuvo de acuerdo en que descriptores como edad, índice de masa corporal, fragilidad, nutrición y puntuación de la Sociedad Estadounidense de Anestesiología se correlacionaban con el estado fisiológico. El cien por ciento estuvo de acuerdo en incluir la función intestinal inicial. El 100% refirió disposición para realizar un informe operativo sinóptico. Los intervalos de seguimiento 1,3,5 años después de la cirugía (76%) con un conjunto de recurrencias y los resultados funcionales en esos períodos de tiempo coincidieron.LIMITACIONES:Sesgo individual, autoidentificación de los expertos y escasez de conocimientos relacionados con el prolapso rectal.CONCLUSIONES:Esto representa los primeros pasos hacia un consenso internacional para unificar el lenguaje y los procesos de recolección de datos para el prolapso rectal. (Traducción-Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Ventral mesh rectopexy. Does a descending perineum impact functional results and quality of life?

PURPOSE: The impact of perineal descent (PD) on functional outcome and quality of life after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of PD on the functional outcome and quality of life (QOL) after VMR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on fifty-five patients who underwent robotic VMR between 2018 and 2021. Pre and postoperative data along with radiological studies were gathered from a prospectively maintained database. The Cleveland Clinic Constipation score (CCCS), the Rome IV criteria and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), were used to measure functional results and QOL. RESULTS: All 55 patients (mean age 57.8 years) were female. Most patients had radiological findings of severe PD (n = 31) as opposed to mild/moderate PD (n = 24). CCCS significantly improved at 3 months and 1 year post-VMR (mean difference = -4.4 and -5.4 respectively, p < 0.001) with no significant difference between the two groups. The percentage of functional constipation Rome IV criteria only showed an improved outcome at 3 months for severe PD and at 1 year for mild/moderate PD (difference = -58.1% and -54.2% respectively, p < 0.05). Only the SF-36 subscale bodily pain significantly improved in the mild/moderate PD group (mean difference = 16.7, p = 0.002) 3 months post-VMR which subsided after one year (mean difference = 5.5, p = 0.068). CONCLUSION: Severe PD may impact the functional outcome of constipation without an evident effect on QOL after VMR. The results, however, remain inconclusive and further research is warranted.

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.

Patient Outcomes After Robotic Ventral Rectopexy With Sacrocolpopexy.

IMPORTANCE: As few studies exist examining postoperative functional outcomes in patients undergoing robotic sacrocolpopexy and ventral rectopexy, results from this study can help guide surgeons in counseling patients on their outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate functional outcomes and overall postoperative satisfaction as measured by the Pelvic Floor Disability Index 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement Scale (PGI-I) in patients who underwent combined robotic ventral rectopexy and sacrocolpopexy for concomitant pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and rectal prolapse or intussusception (RP/I). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort and survey study of patients with combined POP and RP/I who underwent the previously mentioned surgical repair between January 2018 and July 2021. Each patient was contacted to participate in a survey evaluating postoperative symptoms related bother, sexual function, and overall satisfaction using the PFDI-20, PISQ-12, and PGI-I. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients met study inclusion criteria with 67 patients completing the surveys. The mean age and body mass index were 63.7 ± 11.5 years and 25.0 ± 5.4, respectively. Of the patients, 19% had a prior RP repair and 23% had a prior POP repair. Rectal prolapse or intussusception recurrence was reported in 10.4% of patients and objective POP recurrence was found in 7.5% of patients. Sixty-seven patients (62%) completed the surveys. The median time to survey follow-up was 18 (8.8-51.8) months. At the time of survey, the mean PFDI-20 score was 95.7 ± 53.7. The mean PISQ-12 score for all patients was 32.8 ± 7.2 and the median PGI-I score was 2.0 (interquartile range, 1.0-3.0). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients who underwent a combined robotic ventral rectopexy and sacrocolpopexy, patient-reported postoperative symptom bother was low, sexual function was high, and their overall condition was much improved.

Combined Robotic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy and Sacrocolpopexy for Multicompartmental Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Multispecialty management should be the preferred approach for the treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction because there is often multicompartmental prolapse. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of combined robotic ventral mesh rectopexy and either uterine or vaginal fixation for the treatment of multicompartmental pelvic organ prolapse at our institution. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTINGS: Tertiary referral academic center. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent a robotic approach and combined procedure and whose cases were discussed at a biweekly pelvic floor multidisciplinary team meeting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative time, intraoperative blood loss and complications, postoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification score, length of stay, 30-day morbidity, and readmission. RESULTS: From 2018 to 2021, there were 321 operations for patients with multicompartmental prolapse. The mean age was 63.4 years. The predominant pelvic floor dysfunction was rectal prolapse in 170 cases (60%). Pelvic organ prolapse quantification scores were II in 146 patients (53%), III in 121 patients (44%), and IV in 9 patients (3%); 315 of 323 cases included robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (98%). Sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy was performed in 281 patients (89%). Other procedures included 175 hysterectomies (54%), 104 oophorectomies (32%), 151 sling procedures (47%), 149 posterior repairs (46%), and 138 cystocele repairs (43%). The operative time for ventral mesh rectopexy was 211 minutes and for combined pelvic floor reconstruction was 266 minutes. Average length of stay was 1.6 days. Eight patients were readmitted within 30 days: 1 with a severe headache and 7 with postoperative complications (2.5%), such as pelvic collection and perirectal collection, both requiring radiologic drainage. Four complications required reoperation: epidural abscess, small-bowel obstruction, missed enterotomy requiring resection, and urinary retention requiring sling revision. There were no mortalities. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: A combined robotic approach for multicompartmental pelvic organ prolapse is a safe and viable procedure with a relatively low rate of morbidity and no mortality. This is the highest volume series of combined robotic pelvic floor reconstruction in the literature and demonstrates a low complication rate and short length of stay. See Video Abstract . RECTOPEXIA Y SACROCOLPOPEXIA ROBTICA VENTRAL COMBINADAS CON MALLA PARA EL PROLAPSO DE RGANOS PLVICOS MULTICOMPARTIMENTALES: ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento multiespecializado debe ser el enfoque preferido para el tratamiento de la disfunción del suelo pélvico, ya que a menudo hay prolapso multicompartimental.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la seguridad de la rectopexia robótica combinada con malla ventral y fijación uterina o vaginal para el tratamiento del prolapso multicompartimental de órganos pélvicos en nuestra institución.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Centro académico de referencia terciarioPACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a un enfoque robótico y un procedimiento combinado y se discutieron en una reunión quincenal del equipo multidisciplinario sobre el piso pélvico.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tiempo operatorio, pérdida de sangre intraoperatoria y complicaciones. Puntuación de cuantificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos posoperatorio, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, morbilidad a 30 días y reingreso.RESULTADOS:De 2018 a 2021, se realizaron 321 operaciones de pacientes con prolapso multicompartimental. La edad media fue 63.4 años. La disfunción del suelo pélvico predominante fue el prolapso rectal en 170 casos (60%). Las puntuaciones de cuantificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos fueron II en 146 pacientes (53%), III en 121 (44%) y IV en 9 (3%); 315 de los 323 casos incluyeron rectopexia robótica de malla ventral (98%). Se realizó sacrocolpopexia o sacrohisteropexia en 281 pacientes (89%). Otros procedimientos incluyeron 175 histerectomías (54%), 104 ooforectomías (32%), 151 procedimientos de cabestrillo (47%), 149 reparaciones posteriores (46%) y 138 reparaciones de cistocele (43%). El tiempo operatorio para la rectopexia con malla ventral fue de 211 minutos y la reconstrucción combinada del piso pélvico de 266 minutos. La estancia media fue de 1.6 días. Ocho pacientes reingresaron dentro de los 30 días, 1 con dolor de cabeza intenso y 7 pacientes con complicaciones posoperatorias (2.5%): colección pélvica y colección perirrectal, ambas requirieron drenaje radiológico. Cuatro complicaciones requirieron reoperación: absceso epidural, obstrucción del intestino delgado, enterotomía omitida que requirió resección y retención urinaria que requirió revisión del cabestrillo. No hubo mortalidades.LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo unicéntrico.CONCLUSIONES:Un enfoque robótico combinado para el prolapso multicompartimental de órganos pélvicos es un procedimiento seguro y viable con una tasa relativamente baja de morbilidad y ninguna mortalidad. Esta es la serie de mayor volumen de reconstrucción robótica combinada del suelo pélvico en la literatura y demuestra una baja tasa de complicaciones y una estancia hospitalaria corta. (Traducción-Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez )See Editorial on page 195.