Cargando…

Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series

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....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Drissi, Farouk, Rogier-Mouzelas, Fabien, Fernandez Arias, Sebastian, Podevin, Juliette, Meurette, Guillaume
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10488879/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37685818
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12175751
_version_ 1785103581369597952
author Drissi, Farouk
Rogier-Mouzelas, Fabien
Fernandez Arias, Sebastian
Podevin, Juliette
Meurette, Guillaume
author_facet Drissi, Farouk
Rogier-Mouzelas, Fabien
Fernandez Arias, Sebastian
Podevin, Juliette
Meurette, Guillaume
author_sort Drissi, Farouk
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10488879
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104888792023-09-09 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 J Clin Med Article 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. MDPI 2023-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC10488879/ /pubmed/37685818 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12175751 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Drissi, Farouk
Rogier-Mouzelas, Fabien
Fernandez Arias, Sebastian
Podevin, Juliette
Meurette, Guillaume
Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series
title Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series
title_full Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series
title_fullStr Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series
title_full_unstemmed Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series
title_short Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series
title_sort moving from laparoscopic synthetic mesh to robotic biological mesh for ventral rectopexy: results from a case series
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10488879/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37685818
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12175751
work_keys_str_mv AT drissifarouk movingfromlaparoscopicsyntheticmeshtoroboticbiologicalmeshforventralrectopexyresultsfromacaseseries
AT rogiermouzelasfabien movingfromlaparoscopicsyntheticmeshtoroboticbiologicalmeshforventralrectopexyresultsfromacaseseries
AT fernandezariassebastian movingfromlaparoscopicsyntheticmeshtoroboticbiologicalmeshforventralrectopexyresultsfromacaseseries
AT podevinjuliette movingfromlaparoscopicsyntheticmeshtoroboticbiologicalmeshforventralrectopexyresultsfromacaseseries
AT meuretteguillaume movingfromlaparoscopicsyntheticmeshtoroboticbiologicalmeshforventralrectopexyresultsfromacaseseries