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

Table 3 Recurrence rates following laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic mesh n (%)

Laparoscopic studies	n	FU (median)	Recurrence	Type of recurrence	Presentation of recurrence (mo)
Indication ERP
D’Hoore et al[6], 2004	42	61	2 (4.8)	2 ERP	54, 91
Verdaasdonk et al[42], 20061	13	7	2 (15.4)	2 ERP	-
Auguste et al[21], 2006	54	12	4 (7.4)	3 ERP, 1 IRP	26 (7-54)2
D’Hoore et al[84], 2006	109	-	5 (4.6)	4 ERP, 1 enterocele	-
Cristaldi et al[42], 2007	63	18	1 (1.7)	ERP	-
Boons et al[44], 2010	65	19	1 (1.5)	ERP	12
Wijffels et al[85], 2011	80	23	2 (2.5%)	2 ERP	6, 16
Faucheron et al[86], 2012	175	74/603	2 (3)3	2 ERP	6, 24
Randall et al[31], 20145	190	29	9 (4.7)	1 ERP, 8 IRP	25, 30, 31, 606
Gosselink et al[29], 20153	41	12	1 (2.3)	ERP	12
Tsunoda et al[34], 2016	31	25	3 (9.7)	3 IRP	10, 17, 31
Indication IRP and/or rectocele
Collinson et al[51], 2010	75	12	4 (5.3)	4 IRP	-
Wong et al[52], 2011	84	29	6 (7.1)	6 rectocele	-
Gosselink et al[29], 20154	50	12	3 (5.8)	3 IRP	-
Indication both ERP and IRP and/or rectocele
Lauretta et al[24], 2012	2 ERP, 28 IRP	13.97	1 (3.3)	1 IRP	19
Formijne Jonkers et al[23], 2013	36 ERP, 197 IRP	30	6 (2.6)	-	-
Badrek-Amoudi et al[25], 2013	11 ERP, 37 IRP	33	4 (8.3)	4 IRP	22 (median)
Maggiori et al[26], 2013	338	427	2 (6.7)	2 rectocele	11, 14
Mackenzie et al[32], 2014	149 ERP, 487 IRP	21	60 (9.4)	-	-
Owais et al[53], 20149	18 ERP, 60 IRP	42	2 (2.9)	2 IRP	-
Consten/van Iersel et al[12], 2015	242 ERP, 677 IRP	33.9/1203	68 (14.3)3	15 ERP, 53 IRP	24.1 (1-139.4)2
Tsunoda et al[33], 2015	19 ERP, 25 IRP	26	2 (3.4)	2 IRP	10, 15
Robotic vs Laparoscopic - various indications
De Hoog et al[39], 2009	20 ERP robot	23.4	4 (20)	-	-
Wong et al[92], 2011	23 IRP lap	12	1 (4.3)	Rectocele	3
	15 IRP robot		1 (6.7)	Rectocele	7
Wong et al[36], 2011	40 IRP lap	6	0 (0)	-	-
	23 IRP robot		0 (0)	-	-
Mantoo et al[38], 201310	23 ERP, 51 IRP lap	1611	6 (8)	-	-
	12 ERP, 32 IRP robot		3 (7)	-	-
Mäkelä-Kaikkonen et al[37], 2014	14 ERP, 6 IRP lap	3	1 (5)	-	-
	13 ERP, 7 IRP robot		0 (0)	-	-

¹One patient was excluded from further analysis, therefore n = 13 instead of n = 14 is used;

²Mean (range);

³Recurrence percentage is KM estimate at 60 and 120 mo of follow-up;

⁴The results of Gosselink et al are displayed per indication;

⁵Study group included the first 44 cases from Slawik et al[62];

⁶Only 4 time intervals are described;

⁷Mean instead of median;

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;

⁹Only men included;

¹⁰A modified version of the D’Hoore rectopexy used;

¹¹Not specified whether mean of median was used. Lap: Laparoscopic; IRP: Internal rectal prolapse; ERP: External rectal prolapse.