Top

Published in:

01-12-2016 | Original Article

Anatomical and functional changes to the pelvic floor after robotic versus laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a randomised study

Authors: Johanna K. Mäkelä-Kaikkonen, Tero T. Rautio, Sari Koivurova, Eija Pääkkö, Pasi Ohtonen, Fausto Biancari, Jyrki T. Mäkelä

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 12/2016

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

To compare the effect of laparoscopic and robot-assisted ventral rectopexy for posterior compartment procidentia on the pelvic floor anatomy and function.

Methods

A prospective randomised single-centre study was carried out of 29 female patients, who underwent robot-assisted or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external or internal rectal prolapse with symptoms of obstructive defecation and/or faecal incontinence. Anatomical changes were measured by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) and magnetic resonance defecography. Functional changes were evaluated using symptom questionnaires before and 3 months after surgery.

Results

After rectopexy, changes in POP-Q measurements were statistically significant for points Ap, Bp, C, D and Ba. The descent of the anorectum and cervix/vaginal cuff during straining were significantly reduced with regard to the reference line (mean, −10.4 ± 14.9 mm, p = 0.001) and (−13.3 ± 18.1 mm, p < 0.001) respectively. Pelvic organ mobility (POM) was reduced statistically significantly for the posterior (mean, −16.6 ± 20.8 mm, p < 0.001) and apical compartments (mean, −13.1 ± 14.8, p < 0.001). The PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and PISQ-12 questionnaires showed statistically significant improvement of symptoms and sexual function. No significant differences were observed between the robot-assisted and laparoscopic techniques in terms of anatomical or functional parameters.

Conclusion

Ventral mesh recto-colpo-sacropexy effectively corrects the anatomy of the posterior compartment, elevates the vaginal apex and reduces pelvic organ mobility of the posterior and middle compartments. The robot-assisted and laparoscopic techniques had similar anatomical and functional outcomes.

D’Hoore A (2003) Obstructed defecation. Colorectal Dis 5(4):280–287CrossRefPubMed

Varma MG, Hart SL, Brown JS, Creasman JM, Van Den Eeden SK, Thom DH (2008) Obstructive defecation in middle-aged women. Dig Dis Sci 53(10):2702–2709CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Maglinte DD, Kelvin FM, Fitzgerald K, Hale DS, Benson JT (1999) Association of compartment defects in pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Roentgenol 172:439–444CrossRef

Rinne KM, Kirkinen PP (1999) What predisposes young women to genital prolapse? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 84:23–25CrossRefPubMed

D’Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F (2004) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 91:1500–1505CrossRefPubMed

D’Hoore A, Penninckx F (2006) Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients. Surg Endosc 20:1919–1923CrossRefPubMed

Gouvas N, Georgiou PA, Agalianos C, Tan E, Tekkis P, Dervenis C, Xynos E (2015) Ventral colporectopexy for overt rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 17:O34–O46CrossRefPubMed

Collinson R, Wijffels N, Cunningham C, Lindsey I (2010) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for internal rectal prolapse: short-term functional results. Colorectal Dis 12:97–104CrossRefPubMed

Mercer-Jones MA, D'Hoore A, Dixon AR, Lehur P, Lindsey I, Mellgren A, Stevenson AR (2014) Consensus on ventral rectopexy: report of a panel of experts. Colorectal Dis 16:82–88CrossRefPubMed

10.

Wong MTC, Meurette G, Rigaud J, Regenet N, Lehur P-A (2011) Robotic versus laparoscopic rectopexy for complex rectocele: a prospective comparison of short-term outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 54:342–346CrossRefPubMed

11.

Franceschilli L, Varvaras D, Capuano I, Ciangola CI, Giorgi F, Boehm G, Gaspari AL, Sileri P (2015) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using biologic mesh for the treatment of obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse: a critical appraisal of the first 100 cases. Tech Coloproctol 19:209–219CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ayav A, Bresler L, Hubert J, Brunaud L, Boissel P (2005) Robotic-assisted pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Surg Endosc 19:1200–1203CrossRefPubMed

13.

Baik SH (2008) Robotic colorectal surgery. Yonsei Med J 49:891–896CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Maeso S, Resa M et al (2010) Efficacy of the Da Vinci Surgical System in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 252:254–262CrossRefPubMed

15.

Mantoo S, Podevin J, Regenet N, Rigaud J, Lehur P-S, Meurette M (2013) Is robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy superior to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the management of obstructed defaecation? Colorectal Dis 15:469–475CrossRef

16.

Mäkelä-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Pääkkö E, Biancari F, Ohtonen P, Mäkelä J (2016) Robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in the treatment of external, internal rectal prolapse and enterocele: a randomised controlled trial. Colorectal Dis. doi:10.1111/codi.13309 PubMed

17.

Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC (2005) Short forms of two condition specific questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:103–113CrossRefPubMed

18.

Rogers RG, Coates KW, Kammerer-Doak D, Khalsa S, Qualls C (2003) A short form of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Int Urogynecol J 14:164–168CrossRef

19.

Alt CD, Brocker KA, Lenz F, Sohn C, Kauczor H-U, Hallscheidt P (2014) MRI findings before and after prolapse surgery. Acta Radiol 55:495–504CrossRefPubMed

20.

Comiter CV, Vasavada SP, Barbaric ZL, Gousse AE, Raz S (1999) Grading pelvic prolapse and pelvic floor relaxation using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Urology 54:454–457CrossRefPubMed

21.

Mäkelä-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Klintrup K, Takala H, Vierimaa M, Ohtonen P, Mäkelä J (2014) Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a matched-pairs study of operative details and complications. Tech Coloproctol 18:151–155CrossRefPubMed

22.

Ginath S, Garely AD, Luchs JS, Shahryarinejad A, Olivera CK, Zhou S, Ascher-Walsh CJ, Condrea A, Brodman ML, Vardy MD (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging of abdominal versus vaginal prolapse surgery with mesh. Int Urogynecol J 23:1569–1576CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kasturi S, Lowman JK, Kelvin FM, Akisik FM, Terry CL, Hale DS (2010) Pelvic magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of the efficacy of the Prolift system for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:504CrossRefPubMed

24.

Siegmann KC, Reisenauer C, Speck S, Barth S, Kraemer B, Claussen CD (2011) Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of minimally invasive pelvic floor reconstruction with polypropylene implant. Eur J Radiol 80:182–187CrossRefPubMed

25.

Van der Weiden RM, Rociu E, Mannaerts GH, van Hooff MH, Vierhout ME, Withagen MI (2014) Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging before and 6 months after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 25:507–515

26.

Broekhuis SR, Fütterer JJ, Hendriks JC, Barentsz JO, Vierhout ME, Kluivers KB (2009) Symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction are poorly correlated with findings on clinical examination and dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:1169–1174CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Lakeman MM, Zijta FM, Peringa J, Nederveen AJ, Stoker J, Roovers JP (2012) Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging to quantify pelvic organ prolapse: reliability of assessment and correlation with clinical findings and pelvic floor symptoms. Int Urogynecol J 23:1547–1554CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118:1005–1013CrossRefPubMed

Title: Anatomical and functional changes to the pelvic floor after robotic versus laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a randomised study
Authors: Johanna K. Mäkelä-Kaikkonen
Tero T. Rautio
Sari Koivurova
Eija Pääkkö
Pasi Ohtonen
Fausto Biancari
Jyrki T. Mäkelä
Publication date: 01-12-2016
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 12/2016
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3048-y

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Anatomical and functional changes to the pelvic floor after robotic versus laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a randomised study

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2016

Quality of life outcomes in peri-urethral calcium hydroxylapatite injection

Which factors should be considered in choosing pessary type and size for pelvic organ prolapse patients in a fitting trial?

Does the diagnosis of detrusor overactivity affect the long-term prognosis of patients treated with a retropubic midurethral sling?

Transvaginal repair of a urethrovaginal fistula using the Latzko technique with a bulbocavernosus (Martius) flap

Assessing the use of the IUGA/ICS classification system for prosthesis/graft complications in publications from 2011 to 2015

Urogynecology digest