Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series.
Drissi, Farouk; Rogier-Mouzelas, Fabien; Fernandez Arias, Sebastian; Podevin, Juliette; Meurette, Guillaume.
Afiliación
  • Drissi F; Department of Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Nantes, 1 Place Alexis Ricordeau, 44093 Nantes, France.
  • Rogier-Mouzelas F; Department of Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Nantes, 1 Place Alexis Ricordeau, 44093 Nantes, France.
  • Fernandez Arias S; Hospital Vital Alvarez Buylla, 33611 Mieres, Spain.
  • Podevin J; Department of Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Nantes, 1 Place Alexis Ricordeau, 44093 Nantes, France.
  • Meurette G; Division of Digestive Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.
J Clin Med ; 12(17)2023 Sep 04.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37685818
ABSTRACT

Introduction:

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is the standard procedure for the treatment of posterior pelvic organ prolapse. Despite significant functional improvement and anatomical corrections, severe complications related to mesh augmentation can occur in a few proportions of patients. In order to decrease the number of rare but severe complications, we developed a variant of the conventional VMR without any rectal fixation and using a robotic approach with biological mesh. The aim of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with synthetic mesh (LVMRS) to those of robotic ventral rectopexy with biological mesh (RVMRB).

Methods:

Between 2004 and 2021, patients operated on for VMR in our unit were identified and separated into two groups LVMRS and RVMRB. The surgical technique for both groups consisted of VMR without any rectal fixation, with mesh distally secured on the levator ani muscles.

Results:

269 patients with a mean age of 62 years were operated for posterior pelvic floor disorder rectocele (61.7%) and external rectal prolapse (34.6%). 222 (82.5%) patients received LVMRS (2004-2015), whereas 47 were operated with RVMRB (2015-2021). Both groups slightly differed for combined anterior fixation proportion (LVMRS 39% vs. RVMRB 6.4%, p < 0.001). Despite these differences, the length of stay was shorter in the RVMRB group (2 vs. 3 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative complications were comparable in the two groups (1.8 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.089) and mainly consisted of minor complications. Functional outcomes were favorable and similar in both groups, with an improvement in bulging, obstructed defecation symptoms, and fecal incontinence (NS in subgroup analysis). In the long term, there were no mesh erosions reported. The overall recurrence rate was 11.9%, and was comparable in the two groups (13% LVMRS vs. 8.5, p = 0.43).

Conclusions:

VMR without rectal fixation is a safe and effective approach in posterior organ prolapse management. RVMRB provides comparable results in terms of recurrence and functional results, with avoidance of unabsorbable material implantation.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Med Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Francia

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Med Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Francia