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

Mäkelä-Kaikkonen, Johanna; Rautio, Tero; Koivurova, Sari; Pääkkö, Eija; Ohtonen, Pasi; Biancari, Fausto; Mäkelä, Jyrki

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.

PELVIC floor; PROLAPSE of bodily organs; DEFECOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSIS of defecation disorders; DEFECATION

International Urogynecology Journal, 2016, Vol 27, Issue 12, p1837

0937-3462

Academic Journal

10.1007/s00192-016-3048-y