Current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external and internal rectal prolapse

Table 2 Functional results following laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic mesh

Laparoscopic studies	n	Median FU (mo)	Improvement OD	P value	Improvement FI	P value	Median gain CCCS	P value	Median gain CCIS	P value
Indication ERP
D’Hoore et al[6], 2004	42	61	84.2%. De novo 4.8%	-	90.3%	-	-	-	13	< 0.001
Auguste et al[21], 2006	54	12	70%. De novo 17.6%		72.4%		-	-	5.81	-
Verdaasdonk et al[42], 20062	13	7	66%	-	69%	-	-	-	-	-
Cristaldi et al[43], 2007	63	18	78%	-	90%. De novo 3.2%	-	5	< 0.0001	32 (FISI)	< 0.0001
Boons et al[44], 2010	583	19	72%	-	83%. De novo 1.5%	-	5	< 0.0001	36 (FISI)	< 0.0001
Formijne Jonkers et al[23], 20134	36	30	57.9%	0.01	76.2%	< 0.001	-	-	-	-
Randall et al[31], 2014	190	29	-	-	93%	-	-	-	8	< 0.0001
Gosselink et al[29], 20154	41	12	-	-	50%	< 0.01	4.8	< 0.01	12 (FISI)	< 0.01
Tsunoda et al[33], 201545	19	12	52%	-	62%	-	7	< 0.0001	23 (FISI)	< 0.0001
Consten/van Iersel et al[12], 20154	242	33.9	63.3%	< 0.0001	73.2%	< 0.0001	-	-	-	-
Tsunoda et al[34], 2016	31	12	-	-	-	-	5	0.005	22 (FISI)	< 0.0001
Indication IRP and/or rectocele
Collinson et al[50], 2007	30	3	83%	-	92%	-	9	< 0.0001	25 (FISI)	< 0.0001
Collinson et al[51], 2010	75	12	86%	-	85%	-	7	< 0.0001	20 (FISI)	< 0.0001
Wong et al[52], 2011	84	29	45%	< 0.001	20%	> 0.05	-	-	-	-
Formijne Jonkers et al[23], 20134	197	30	76.9%	< 0.001	65.4%	< 0.001	-	-	-	-
Gosselink et al[28], 2013	72	12	-	-	-	-	5	< 0.001	16 (FISI)	< 0.01
Gosselink et al[29], 20154	50	12	-	-	48%	< 0.01	3.1	< 0.01	17 (FISI)	< 0.01
Tsunoda et al[33], 201545	25	12	55%	-	63%	-	6	< 0.0001	22 (FISI)	< 0.0001
Tsunoda et al[87], 2015	26	16	-	-	-	-	7	< 0.01	24 (FISI)	< 0.01
Consten/van Iersel et al[12], 20154	242	33.9	61%	< 0.0001	73.2%	< 0.0001	-	-	-	-
Indication both ERP and IRP and/or rectocele
van den Esschert et al[54], 2008	1 ERP, 16 IRP	381	-	-	-	-	+2.76 (ODS)	0.091	-	-
Lauretta et al[24], 2012	2 ERP, 28 IRP	13.91	92.8%	-	85.7%	-	9.1 (ODS)1[88]	< 0.05	7.11	< 0.05
Badrek-Amoudi et al[25], 2013	11 ERP, 37 IRP	33	68%	< 0.0001	-	-	17 (ODS)7[89]	< 0.0001	4	< 0.0001
Maggiori et al[26], 2013	338	421	72%. De novo 7%	-	90%	-	-	-	8	0.002
Mackenzie et al[32], 2014	149 ERP, 487 IRP	21	56.7%9. De novo 1.4%	0.119	89.7%10. De novo 1%	0.040	12 (ODS )[88]	-	8	-
Owais et al[53], 201411	18 ERP, 50 IRP	42	82%	-	82%	-	12.5 (ODS)[90]	< 0.001	4	< 0.001
Robotic vs Laparoscopic studies - various indications
De Hoog et al[39], 20091	20 ERP R	23.4	-	-	-	-	3.21	-	-	-
Mantoo et al[38], 201312	23 ERP, 51 IRP L	1613	-	-	-	-	6 (ODS)14	0.004	414	0.604
	12 ERP, 32 IRP R						14 (ODS)14[91]	0.004	414	0.604

¹Mean instead of median;

²One patient was excluded from further analysis, therefore n = 13 instead of n = 14 was used;

³Functional data were complete in 58 of 65 patients;

⁴The results of Formijne Jonkers et al, Gosselink et al, Tsunoda and Consten and van Iersel et al are displayed per indication;

⁵Postoperative functional data were fulfilled in 44 of 59 patients;

⁶Mean ODS score was 2.7 higher after surgery meaning function deteriorated postoperatively; ⁷Pre- and postoperative ODS scores were available for 36 patients;

⁸Of the 33 patients (ERP n = 20, n = 13 IRR) 3 lost to follow-up. For the remainder of patients the surgical indication was not given;

⁹Based on 602 patients;

¹⁰Based on 276 patients;

¹¹Only men included;

¹²A modified version of the D’Hoore rectopexy used;

¹³Not specified whether mean of median was used;

¹⁴Estimation based on bar chart. OD: Obstructed defecation; FI: Faecal incontinence; ODS: Obstructed defecation syndrome score; L: Laparoscopic; R: Robot; RP: Internal rectal prolapse; ERP: External rectal prolapse; CCCS: Cleveland clinic constipation score; CCIS: Cleveland clinic incontinence score.