Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a matched-pairs study of operative details and complications

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. 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.

Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion.

METHODS

We set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons' characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis.

RESULTS

The 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Robotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit.

Technical modifications for cost optimization in robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy: an initial experience

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is considered a valid option in the treatment of rectal prolapse. However, it involves higher costs than the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study is to determine if less expensive robotic surgery for rectal prolapse can be safely performed.

METHODS

This study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, from 7 November 2020 to 22 November 2021. The cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources in patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with the da Vinci Xi Surgical Systems was analyzed before and after technical modifications, including the reduction of robotic arms and instruments, and the execution of a double minimal peritoneal incision at the pouch of Douglas and sacral promontory (instead of the traditional inverted J incision).

RESULTS

Twenty-two robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were performed [21 females, 95.5%, median age 62.0 (54.8-70.0) years]. After an initial experience performing traditional robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in four patients, we adopted technical modifications in other cases. No major complication or conversion to open surgery occurred. In total, mean cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources was €6995.5 ± 1058.0, €5912.7 ± 877.0, €2797.6 ± 545.6, and €2608.3 ± 351.5, respectively. Technical modifications allowed a significant reduction in the overall cost of hospitalization (€6604.5 ± 589.5 versus €8755.0 ± 906.4, p = 0.001), number of robotic instruments (3.1 ± 0.2 versus 4.0 ± 0.8 units, p = 0.026), and operating room time (201 ± 26 versus 253 ± 16 min, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering our preliminary results, robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with appropriate technical modifications can be cost-effective and safe.

Tunneling of Mesh during Ventral Rectopexy: Technical Aspects and Long-Term Functional Results

Avoiding the extensive damage of pelvic structures during ventral rectopexy could minimize secondary disfunctions. The objective of our observational study is to assess the safety and functional efficacy of a modified ventral rectopexy. In the modified ventral rectopexy, a retroperitoneal tunnel was created along the right side of rectum, connecting two peritoneal mini-incisions at the Douglas pouch and sacral promontory. The proximal edge of a polypropylene mesh, sutured over the ventral rectum, was pulled up through the retroperitoneal tunnel and fixed to the sacral promontory. In all patients, radiopaque clips were placed on the mesh, making it radiographically "visible". Before surgery and at follow up visits, Altomare, Longo, CCSS, PAC-SYM, and CCFI scores were collected. From March 2010 to September 2021, 117 patients underwent VR. Modified ventral rectopexy was performed in 65 patients, while the standard ventral rectopexy was performed in 52 patients. The open approach was used in 97 cases (55 and 42 patients in modified and standard VR, respectively), while MI surgery was used in 20 cases (10 and 10 patients in modified and standard VR, respectively). A slightly shorter operative time and hospital stay were observed following modified ventral rectopexy (though this was not statistically significant). Similar overall complication rates were registered in the modified vs. standard ventral rectopexies (4.6% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.779). At follow-up, the Longo score (14.0 ± 8.6 vs. 11.0 ± 8.2, p = 0.042) and "delta" values of Altomare (9.2 ± 6.1 vs. 5.9 ± 6.3, p = 0.008) and CCSS (8.4 ± 6.3 vs. 6.1 ± 6.1, p = 0.037) scores were significantly improved in the modified ventral rectopexy group. A similar occurrence of symptoms recurrence was diagnosed in the two groups. Radiopaque clips helped to accurately diagnose mesh detachment/dislocation. The proposed modified VR seems to be feasible and safe. Marking the mesh intraoperatively seems useful.

Mid-term functional and quality of life outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: multicenter comparative matched-pair analyses

Background

The aim of this study was to compare patients’ mid-term functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes following robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR).

Methods

The data of consecutive female patients who underwent minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy for external or symptomatic internal rectal prolapse at 3 hospitals in Finland between January 2011 and December 2016 were retrospectively collected. Patients were matched by age and diagnosis at a 1:1 ratio. A disease-related symptom questionnaire was sent to all living patients at follow-up in July 2018.

Results

After a total of 401 patients (RVMR, n = 187; LVMR, n = 214) were matched, 152 patients in each group were included in the final analyses. The median follow-up times were 3.3 (range 1.6–7.4) years and 3.0 (range 1.6–7.6) years for the RVMR and LVMR groups, respectively. The postoperative QoL measures did not differ between the groups. Compared with the LVMR group, the RVMR group had lower postoperative Wexner Incontinence Score (median 5 vs. median 8; p < 0.001), experienced significant ongoing incontinence symptoms less often (30.6% vs. 49.0%; p < 0.001) and reported less postoperative faecal incontinence discomfort evaluated with the visual analogue scale (median 11 vs. median 39; p = 0.005). RVMR patients had a shorter hospital stay (2.2 days vs. 3.8 days; p < 0.001) but experienced more frequent de novo pelvic pain (31.8% vs. 11.8%; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

RVMR and LVMR patients had equal functional and QoL outcomes. Those who underwent RVMR had lower mid-term anal incontinence symptom scores but suffered more frequent de novo pelvic pain.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10151-021-02563-z.

European Society of Coloproctology guidance on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery

This is a comprehensive and rigorous review of currently available data on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery. This guideline outlines the limitations of available data and the challenges of interpretation, followed by best possible recommendations.

Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Ventral mesh rectopexy is frequently performed as a means of improving the quality of life for sufferers of rectal prolapse. The minimally invasive approach is highly desirable but can be technically difficult to achieve in the narrow confines of the pelvis. The robotic platform is becoming a more common means of overcoming these difficulties, but evidence of an objective benefit over standard laparoscopy is scarce. This study seeks to review and analyse the data comparing outcomes after robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for papers comparing robotic to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Comparable data was pooled for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Six studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Sample sizes were relatively small, and only two of the studies were randomised. Pooled analysis was possible for data on operating time, complication rates, conversion rates and length of stay in hospital. This showed a non-significant trend towards longer operating times and a statistically significant reduction in length of stay after robotic procedures. There was no significant difference in complication and conversion rates.

CONCLUSION

The frequent finding of longer operating time for robotic surgery was not confirmed in this study. Shorter length of stay in hospital was seen, with other post-operative outcomes showing no significant difference. More data is needed with cost-benefit analyses to show whether the robotic platform is justified.

Meta-analysis on current status, efficacy, and safety of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse treatment: can robotic surgery become the gold standard?

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted surgery and robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy are gaining attention in the treatment of rectal prolapse and increased positive findings are proposed. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is comparable with the conventional laparoscopic approach surgery.

METHODS

Five major databases (PubMed, Sciencedirect, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched for eligible studies. Observational studies of the effect and safety of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic approaches on ventral mesh rectopexy were included. Odd ratios (OR) and weight mean difference (WMD) were used for dichotomous data and continuous data analysis. Clinical outcomes, functional outcomes, and cost-effectiveness data were extracted for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Compared to the laparoscopic approach, a significant shorter length of hospital stay (LOS), lesser intraoperative blood loss, and lower post-operative complication rate of RVMR group were observed. However, operation time of RVMR was significant increased. The expense of RVMR was higher than LVMR; mean Wexner scores and fecal incontinence were lower in RVMR group while there were no statistical differences.

CONCLUSION

The result of the current analysis revealed that the robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is effective and feasible in the treatment of rectal prolapse. However, long-term follow-up and results are needed for the promotion of this approach. There is a long way for robotic-assisted surgery to become a gold standard in rectal surgery.

Update on Robotic Rectal Prolapse Treatment

Rectal prolapse is a condition that can cause significant social impairment and negatively affects quality of life. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, with the aim of restoring the anatomy and correcting the associated functional disorders. During recent decades, laparoscopic abdominal procedures have emerged as effective tools for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with the advantages of faster recovery, lower morbidity, and shorter length of stay. Robotic surgery represents the latest evolution in the field of minimally invasive surgery, with the benefits of enhanced dexterity in deep narrow fields such as the pelvis, and may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal prolapse is feasible and safe. It could reduce complication rates and length of hospital stay, as well as shorten the learning curve, when compared to conventional laparoscopy. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required on long-term functional outcomes and recurrence rates.

Advantages of robotic surgery in the treatment of complex pelvic organs prolapse

Robot-assisted surgery is safe and effective to treat the complex pelvic organs prolapse (C-POP). The present study analyzes all the robotic procedures and their advantages in the treatment of C-POP performed in a Proctologic and Pelvic Floor Clinical Centre. All the patients affected by C-POP who had robot-assisted surgery were retrospective analyzed. The anatomical and functional outcomes were respectively evaluated through POP-Q grading system and Wexner score about constipation and incontinence. The satisfaction rate was investigated using a five-point scale. From September 2014 to December 2018, 229 women underwent robotic surgery. The follow-up was 12 months. There were no robot-related complications. One hematoma (4.5%) of the recto-vaginal space occurred after Robotic Ventral Rectopexy with Folded Mesh (R-VRP-FM). In the robotic assisted lateral suspension (R-ALS) group there was one case of anterior vaginal wall mesh exposure (0.9%). After the robotic ventral rectopexy (R-VRP) the recurrence rate of external rectal prolapse, internal rectal prolapse, rectocele and enterocele was respectively 6.6, 9.5, 7.4 and 9.5%. After R-VRP-FM only one cystocele (14%) and one partial rectal prolapse (25%) recurred. Vaginal bulge symptoms resolution rate was 95.4%. The mean Wexner constipation score significantly decreased after R-VRP and R-VRP-FM. Vaginal bulge symptoms improved in 98.3% of cases with any apical prolapse recurrence after robotic abdominal colposacropexy. Success rate after R-ALS was 99.1% and 96.4% for apical and anterior prolapse respectively. Robotic assistance makes some surgical steps easier and more precise and this may result in less morbidity and better results.

Redo ventral rectopexy: is it worthwhile?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely used surgical treatment for posterior pelvic organ prolapse; however, evidence of the utility of revisional surgery is lacking. Our aim was to assess the technical details, safety and outcomes of redo minimally invasive VMR for patients with external rectal prolapse (ERP) recurrence or relapsed symptoms of internal rectal prolapse (IRP).

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with recurrent ERP or symptomatic IRP who underwent redo minimally invasive VMR between 2011 and 2016. The study was conducted at three hospitals in Finland. Data collected retrospectively included patient demographics, in addition to perioperative and short-term postoperative findings. At follow-up, all living patients were sent a questionnaire concerning postoperative disease-related symptoms and quality of life.

RESULTS

A total of 43 redo minimally invasive VMR were performed during the study period. The indication for reoperation was recurrent ERP in 22 patients and relapsed symptoms of IRP in 21 patients. In most operations (62.8%), the previously used mesh was left in situ and a new one was placed. Ten (23.3%) patients experienced complications, including 2 (4.7%) mesh-related complications. The recurrence rate was 4.5% for ERP. Three patients out of 43 were reoperated on for various reasons. One patient required postoperative laparoscopic hematoma evacuation. Patients operated on for recurrent ERP seemed to benefit more from the reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive redo VMR appears to be a safe and effective procedure for treating posterior pelvic floor dysfunction with acceptable recurrence and reoperation rates.

Restored pelvic anatomy is preserved after laparoscopic and robot-assisted ventral rectopexy: MRI-based 5-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

AIM

Our aim was to compare the long-term anatomical outcomes between robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for external or internal rectal prolapse.

METHOD

This study is a follow-up of a single-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT). Thirty patients were randomly allocated to RVMR (n = 16) or LVMR (n = 14). The primary end-point was maintenance of the restored pelvic anatomy 5 years after the operation, as assessed by magnetic resonance (MR) defaecography. Secondary outcome measures included the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) measures and functional results assessed using symptom questionnaires.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients (14 RVMR and 12 LVMR) completed the 5-year follow-up and were included in the study. The MRI results, POP-Q measurements and symptom-specific quality of life measures did not differ between the RVMR and LVMR groups. The MRI measurements of the total study population remained unchanged between 3 months and 5 years. In the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), the RVMR group had lower symptom scores (mean 96.0, SD 70.7) than the LVMR group (mean 160.6, SD 58.9; P = 0.004). In the subscales of pelvic organ prolapse (POPDI-6) (mean 23.2, SD 24.3 vs mean 52.4, SD 22.4; P = 0.001) and the Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) (mean 38.4, SD 23.3 vs mean 58.6, SD 25.4; P = 0.009), the patients in the RVMR group had significantly better outcomes.

CONCLUSION

After VMR, the corrected anatomy was preserved. There were no clinically significant differences in anatomical results between the RVMR and LVMR procedures 5 years after surgery based on MR defaecography. However, functional outcomes were better after RMVR.

A novel hybrid 3D endoscope zooming and repositioning system: Design and feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Manipulation of the endoscope during minimally invasive surgery is a major source of inconvenience and discomfort. This report elucidates the architecture of a novel one-hand controlled endoscope positioning device and presents a practicability evaluation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Setup time and total surgery time, number and duration of the manipulations, side effects of three-dimensional (3D) imaging, and ergonomic complaints were assessed by three surgeons during cadaveric and in vivo porcine trials.

RESULTS

Setup was accomplished in an average (SD) of 230 (120) seconds. The manipulation time was 3.87 (1.77) seconds for angular movements and 0.83 (0.24) seconds for zooming, with an average (SD) of 30.5 (16.3) manipulations per procedure. No side effects of 3D imaging or ergonomic complaints were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of an active zoom into a passive endoscope holder delivers a convenient synergy between a human and a machine-controlled holding device. It is shown to be safe, simple, and intuitive to use and allows unrestrained autonomic control of the endoscope by the surgeon.

Robotic vs. laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is a treatment with promising results in external rectal prolapse, rectal intussusception, and rectocele. Because of the emergence of robotic-assisted surgery and the technical advantage it provides, we examined the potential role and place of robotic surgery in ventral rectopexy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed, and other databases were searched, by two independent reviewers, to identify studies comparing robotic to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. The primary outcome was the rate of unplanned conversion to open. The secondary outcomes were morbidity, length of hospital stay and recurrence rate.

RESULTS

Five studies (4% male, n = 259) met the inclusion criteria. All 5 studies reported on conversion rate and showed no significant difference between the conversion rate of robotic and laparoscopic groups [OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.09-3.77)]. Robotic surgery was also similar to laparoscopic surgery for both morbidity [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.34-1.48)] and recurrence rate [OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-1.75)]. Operative time was longer in the robotic group with a MWD of 22.88 minutes (CI 5.73-40.04, p < 0.0007). There was a statistically significant reduction in length of stay with robotic surgery [mean difference - 0.36 days (95% CI - 0.66 to - 0.07)].

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review shows that robotic-assisted ventral rectopexy requires longer operative time with no significant added benefit over laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. The conversion rate was low in both groups and the trends to benefit did not reach statistical significance. More studies are required to clarify whether the potential technical advantage of robotic surgery in ventral rectopexy translates to an improvement in clinical outcome.

Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial

Background

The aim of this study was to assess, whether robotic-assistance in ventral mesh rectopexy adds benefit to laparoscopy in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cost-effectiveness and anatomical and functional outcome.

Methods

A prospective randomized study was conducted on patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for internal or external rectal prolapse at Oulu University Hospital, Finland, recruited in February–May 2012. The primary outcomes were health care costs from the hospital perspective and HRQoL measured by the 15D-instrument. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome assessed by pelvic organ prolapse quantification method and functional outcome by symptom questionnaires at 24 months follow-up.

Results

There were 30 females (mean age 62.5 years, SD 11.2), 16 in the RVMR group and 14 in the LVMR group. The surgery-related costs of the RVMR were 1.5 times higher than the cost of the LVMR. At 3 months the changes in HRQoL were ‘much better’ (RVMR) and ‘slightly better’ (LVMR) but declined in both groups at 2 years (RVMR vs. LVMR, p > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness was poor at 2 years for both techniques, but if the outcomes were assumed to last for 5 years, it improved significantly. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the RVMR compared to LVMR was €39,982/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 2 years and improved to €16,707/QALYs at 5 years. Posterior wall anatomy was restored similarly in both groups. The subjective satisfaction rate was 87% in the RVMR group and 69% in the LVMR group (p = 0.83).

Conclusions

Although more expensive than LVMR in the short term, RVMR is cost-effective in long-term. The minimally invasive VMR improves pelvic floor function, sexual function and restores posterior compartment anatomy. The effect on HRQoL is minor, with no differences between techniques.

The role of robotics in colorectal surgery

Robotic surgery is safe and feasible offering many potential advantages to the colorectal surgeon.

Does Ventral Rectopexy Improve Pelvic Floor Function in the Long Term?

BACKGROUND

Information is needed on long-term functional results, sequelas, and outcome predictors for laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term function postventral rectopexy in patients with external rectal prolapse or internal rectal prolapse in a large cohort and to identify the possible effects of patient-related factors and operative technical details on patient-reported outcomes.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review with a cross-sectional questionnaire study.

SETTINGS

Data were collated from prospectively collected registries in 2 university and 2 central hospitals in Finland.

PATIENTS

All 508 consecutive patients treated with ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse or symptomatic internal rectal prolapse in 2005 to 2013 were included.

INTERVENTIONS

A questionnaire concerning disease-related symptoms and effect on quality of life was used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Defecatory function measured by the Wexner score, the obstructive defecation score, and subjective symptom and quality-of-life evaluation using the visual analog scale were included. The effects of patient-related factors and operative technical details were assessed using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The questionnaire response rate was 70.7% (330/467 living patients) with a median follow-up time of 44 months. The mean Wexner scores were 7.0 (SD = 6.1) and 6.9 (SD = 5.6), and the mean obstructive defecation scores were 9.7 (SD = 7.6) and 12.3 (SD = 8.0) for patients presenting with external rectal prolapse and internal rectal prolapse. Subjective symptom relief was experienced by 76% and reported more often by patients with external rectal prolapse than with internal rectal prolapse (86% vs 68%; p < 0.001). Complications occurred in 11.4% of patients, and the recurrence rate for rectal prolapse was 7.1%.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its lack of preoperative functional data and suboptimal questionnaire response rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Ventral mesh rectopexy effectively treats posterior pelvic floor dysfunction with a low complication rate and an acceptable recurrence rate. Patients with external rectal prolapse benefit more from the operation than those with symptomatic internal rectal prolapse. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A479.

Robotic ventral rectopexy: Initial experience in an Indian tertiary health-care centre and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive ventral rectopexy is a well-described technique for management of rectal prolapse. Robotic system has proven its advantage for surgeries in the pelvis. Applying this technique, ventral rectopexy can be done more precisely with minimal recurrence. With growing experience, the operative duration and cost of robotic ventral rectopexy can be reduced with better outcome. Few case studies have been described in literature with no study from Indian subcontinent. We describe a series of eight cases of robotic ventral rectopexy done for rectal prolapse in a tertiary health-care centre of India.

METHODS

A total of 8 patients were operated for complete rectal prolapse during the period from August 2015 to April 2016. da Vinci Si robotic surgical system was used with prolene or permacol mesh for ventral rectopexy. All patients were prospectively followed for a period minimum of 3 months. Pre- and intra-operative findings were recorded along with post-operative outcome.

RESULTS

Out of eight patients, prolene mesh was used in five patients and permacol mesh (porcine collagen) in three patients. Mean operative time (console time) was 177 min and mean total time was 218 min. Mean blood loss was 23.7 ml. Functional outcome was satisfactory in all patients. There was no significant complication in any patient with mean hospital stay of 2.2 days. With average follow-up of 8.8 months, no patient had recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Robotic ventral rectopexy is a safe technique for rectal prolapse with excellent result in terms of functional outcome, recurrence and complications. With experience, the duration and cost can be comparable to laparoscopic technique.

Robot-Assisted Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: A 5-Year Experience at a Tertiary Referral Center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is being increasingly performed internationally to treat rectal prolapse syndromes. Robotic assistance appears advantageous for this procedure, but literature regarding robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is limited.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in the largest consecutive series of patients to date.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of prospectively collected data.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted in a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

All of the patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse syndromes between 2010 and 2015 were evaluated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Preoperative and postoperative (mesh and nonmesh) morbidity and functional outcome were analyzed. The actuarial recurrence rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 258 patients underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (mean ± SD follow-up = 23.5 ± 21.8 mo; range, 0.2 - 65.1 mo). There were no conversions and only 5 intraoperative complications (1.9%). Mortality (0.4%) and major (1.9%) and minor (<30 d) early morbidity (7.0%) were acceptably low. Only 1 (1.3%) mesh-related complication (asymptomatic vaginal mesh erosion) was observed. A significant improvement in obstructed defecation (78.6%) and fecal incontinence (63.7%) were achieved for patients (both p < 0.0005). At final follow-up, a new onset of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation was induced or worsened in 3.9% and 0.4%. The actuarial 5-year external rectal prolapse and internal rectal prolapse recurrence rates were 12.9% and 10.4%.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study including patients with minimal follow-up. No validated scores were used to assess function. The study was monocentric, and there was no control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is a safe and effective technique to treat rectal prolapse syndromes, providing an acceptable recurrence rate and good symptomatic relief with minimal morbidity. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A427.

Robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

Robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) is an appealing approach for the treatment of rectal prolapse and other conditions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of RVMR for rectal prolapse.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review for patients who underwent RVMR for rectal prolapse at our institution between July 2012 and May 2016. Any patient who underwent RVMR during this time frame was included in our analysis. Any cases involving colorectal resection or other rectopexy techniques were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 24 patients who underwent RVMR, 95.8% of patients were female. Median age was 67.5 years old (IQR 51.5-73.3), and 79.2% of patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists class III or IV. Median operative time was 191 min (IQR 164.3-242.5), and median length of stay was 3 days (IQR 2-3). There were no conversions, RVMR-related complications or mortality. Patients were followed for a median of 3.8 (IQR 1.2-15.9) months. Full-thickness recurrence occurred in 3 (12.4%) patients. Rates of fecal incontinence improved after surgery (62.5 vs. 41.5%, respectively) as did constipation (45.8 vs. 33.3%, respectively). No patients reported worsening symptoms postoperatively. Only one (4.2%) patient reported de novo constipation postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

RVMR is a feasible, safe and effective option for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with low short-term morbidity and mortality. Multicenter and long-term studies are needed to better assess the benefits of this procedure.

Risk Factors for Recurrence After Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy effectively treats posterior compartment prolapse. However, recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate factors contributing to recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed of patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy between June 2008 and June 2014. Patients presenting with full-thickness rectal prolapse were compared against the rest. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine predictors for recurrence. Operative findings of redo cases were evaluated.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted under the supervision of a single pelvic floor surgeon.

PATIENTS

A total of 231 patients with a median follow-up of 47 months were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinicopathological risk factors and technical failures contributing to recurrence were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall recurrence rate was 11.7% (n = 27). Twenty-five recurrences occurred in patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse, of which 16 were full-thickness recurrences (14.2% (16/113)). Multivariate analyses showed predictors for recurrence to be prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (HR = 5.57 (95% CI, 1.13 - 27.42); p = 0.04) and the use of synthetic mesh as compared with biologic grafts (HR = 4.24 (95% CI, 1.27-14.20); p = 0.02). Age >70 years and poorer preoperative continence were also associated with recurrence on univariate analysis. Technical failures contributing to recurrence included mesh detachment from the sacral promontory and inadequate midrectal mesh fixation.

LIMITATIONS

Modifications to the operative technique were made throughout the study period. A postoperative defecating proctogram was not routinely performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is multifactorial, and risk factors are both clinical and technical. The use of biologic grafts was associated with lower recurrence as compared with synthetic mesh. Patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse who are elderly, have poorer baseline continence, and have prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency are at increased risk of recurrence.

Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external or internal rectal prolapse and enterocele: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to compare robot-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy procedures for posterior compartment procidentia in terms of restoration of the anatomy using magnetic resonance (MR) defaecography.

METHOD

Sixteen female patients (four with total prolapse, twelve with intussusception) underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and 14 female patients (two with prolapse, twelve with intussusception) laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). Primary outcome measures were perioperative parameters, complications and restoration of anatomy as assessed by MR defaecography, which was performed preoperatively and 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Patient demographics, operation length, operating theatre times and length of in-hospital stay were similar between the groups. The anatomical defects of rectal prolapse, intussusception and rectocele and enterocele were similarly corrected after rectopexy in either technique as confirmed with dynamic MR defaecography. A slight residual intussusception was observed in three patients with primary total prolapse (two RVMR vs one LVMR) and in one patient with primary intussusception (RVMR) (P = 0.60). Rectocele was reduced from a mean of 33.0 ± 14.9 mm to 5.5 ± 8.4 mm after RVMR (P < 0.001) and from 24.7 ± 17.5 mm to 7.2 ± 3.2 mm after LVMR (P < 0.001) (RVMR vs LVMR, P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic ventral rectopexy can be performed safely and within the same operative time as conventional laparoscopy. Minimally invasive ventral rectopexy allows good anatomical correction as assessed by MR defaecography, with no differences between the techniques.

Day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Ventral rectopexy to the promontory has become one of the most strongly advocated surgical treatments for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and deep enterocele. Despite its challenges, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with or without robotic assistance for selected patients can be performed with relatively minimal patient trauma thus creating the potential for same-day discharge. The aim of this prospective case-controlled study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and cost of day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with routine day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy.

METHODS

Between February 28, 2014 and March 3, 2015, 20 consecutive patients underwent day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse or deep enterocele at Michallon University Hospital, Grenoble. Patients were selected for day case surgery on the basis of motivation, favorable social circumstances, and general fitness. One out of every two patients underwent the robotic procedure (n = 10). Demographics, technical results, and costs were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Patients from both groups were comparable in terms of demographics and technical results. Patients operated on with the robot had significantly less pain (p = 0.045). Robotic rectopexy was associated with longer median operative time (94 vs 52.5 min, p < 0.001) and higher costs (9088 vs 3729 euros per procedure, p < 0.001) than laparoscopic rectopexy.

CONCLUSIONS

Day case robotic ventral rectopexy is feasible and safe, but results in longer operative time and higher costs than classical laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse and enterocele.

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

External and internal rectal prolapse with their affiliated rectocele and enterocele, are associated with debilitating symptoms such as obstructed defecation, pelvic pain and faecal incontinence. Since perineal procedures are associated with a higher recurrence rate, an abdominal approach is commonly preferred. Despite the description of greater than three hundred different procedures, thus far no clear superiority of one surgical technique has been demonstrated. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a relatively new and promising technique to correct rectal prolapse. In contrast to the abdominal procedures of past decades, VMR avoids posterolateral rectal mobilisation and thereby minimizes the risk of postoperative constipation. Because of a perceived acceptable recurrence rate, good functional results and low mesh-related morbidity in the short to medium term, VMR has been popularized in the past decade. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted VMR is now being progressively performed internationally and several articles and guidelines propose the procedure as the treatment of choice for rectal prolapse. In this article, an outline of the current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse is presented.

Overview of robotic colorectal surgery: Current and future practical developments

Minimal access surgery has revolutionised colorectal surgery by offering reduced morbidity and mortality over open surgery, while maintaining oncological and functional outcomes with the disadvantage of additional practical challenges. Robotic surgery aids the surgeon in overcoming these challenges. Uptake of robotic assistance has been relatively slow, mainly because of the high initial and ongoing costs of equipment but also because of limited evidence of improved patient outcomes. Advances in robotic colorectal surgery will aim to widen the scope of minimal access surgery to allow larger and more complex surgery through smaller access and natural orifices and also to make the technology more economical, allowing wider dispersal and uptake of robotic technology. Advances in robotic endoscopy will yield self-advancing endoscopes and a widening role for capsule endoscopy including the development of motile and steerable capsules able to deliver localised drug therapy and insufflation as well as being recharged from an extracorporeal power source to allow great longevity. Ultimately robotic technology may advance to the point where many conventional surgical interventions are no longer required. With respect to nanotechnology, surgery may eventually become obsolete.

A new telesurgical platform--preliminary clinical results

A new European telesurgical system, the Telelap Alf-x, is introduced. Its main features are individual arms, which enable free access to the patient throughout surgery, a large range of reusable surgical instruments, an open console with eye-tracking system, where the camera follows the eye and head movements of the surgeon, and the existing force feedback enables for the first time to feel the consistency of the tissues and avoid tearing of the stitches while suturing. The system combines the benefits of open surgery and endoscopy. The first clinical application, which involved 146 operations at the gynecological department of the Gemelli University Hospital in Rome, proved the safety and the surgical team's quick adaptation to the system.

Is robotic ventral mesh rectopexy better than laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation? A meta-analysis

Ventral mesh rectopexy is an approach in the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse and rectocele. Our aim was to assess whether robotic surgery confers any significant advantages over laparoscopy, and the associated complication rate. Two reviewers performed a literature search using MEDLINE and PubMed databases for studies comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. Five prospective, non-randomised studies were identified and included. A total of 244 patients (101 robotic and 143 laparoscopic) were included in the analysis. Operative time was shorter with laparoscopic surgery, mean weighted difference 27.94 [confidence interval (CI) 19.30-36.57; p < 0.00001]. The conversion rate was not significantly different between groups. There was a trend towards a reduction in length of inpatient stay and early post-operative complications in the robotic group; however, these did not reach statistical significance. Recurrence rates were similar between groups (odds ratio 0.91, CI 0.32-2.63; p = 0.87). Functional results were comparable between groups. Early studies show that robotic ventral rectopexy is a safe option compared to the laparoscopic approach, with overall comparable results. There appeared to be a trend towards a reduction in length of inpatient stay and post-operative complications. These perceived benefits may offset the longer operative times and outlay costs. Larger randomised controlled trials are needed to further evaluate clinical value and cost-effectiveness.

Anterior rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: Technical and functional results

AIM: To assess effectiveness, complications, recurrence rate, and recent improvements of the anterior rectopexy procedure for treatment of total rectal prolapse.

METHODS: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and other relevant database were searched to identify studies. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies and original articles in English language, with more than 10 patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse, with a follow-up over 3 mo were considered for the review.

RESULTS: Twelve non-randomized case series studies with 574 patients were included in the review. No surgical mortality was described. Conversion was needed in 17 cases (2.9%), most often due to difficult adhesiolysis. Twenty eight patients (4.8%) presented with major complications. Seven (1.2%) mesh-related complications were reported. Most frequent complications were urinary tract infection and urinary retention. Mean recurrence rate was 4.7% with a median follow-up of 23 mo. Improvement of constipation ranged from 3%-72% of the patients and worsening or new onset occurred in 0%-20%. Incontinence improved in 31%-84% patients who presented fecal incontinence at various stages. Evaluation of functional score was disparate between studies.

CONCLUSION: Based on the low long-term recurrence rate and favorable outcome data in terms of low de novo constipation rate, improvement of anal incontinence, and low complications rate, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy seems to emerge as an efficient procedure for the treatment of patients with total rectal prolapse.

Bowel and bladder dysfunction following surgery within the presacral space: an overview of neuroanatomy, function, and dysfunction

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The presacral space contains a dense and complex network of nerves that have significant effects on the innervation of the pelvic viscera and support structures. The proximity of this space to the bony promontory of the sacrum has lead to its involvement in an array of corrective surgical procedures for pelvic floor disorders including sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy. Other procedures involving the same space include presacral neurectomy which involves intentional transection of the contained neural plexus to relieve refractory pelvic pain and resection of retrorectal or presacral tumors. Potential complications of these procedures are postoperative constipation and voiding dysfunction.

METHODS

Our aim was to review the current published literature on outcomes following a variety of procedures involving the presacral space and review postoperative bowel and urinary function. We also include an overview of the functional and structural anatomy of the presacral space and its corresponding neural plexi.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that quality data are lacking on the short-term and long-term rates for bowel and bladder dysfunction following surgical procedures involving the presacral space.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Ten-year follow up after laparoscopic suture rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse

AIM

Studies have shown that recurrence rates of full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) 5 years after surgery can quadruple at 10 years. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic suture rectopexy for FTRP on recurrence rates and functional outcome at a median follow up of 10 years.

METHOD

Prospectively collected data for patients who underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy for FTRP between 1993 and 2006 were analysed. Laparoscopic rectopexy consisted of circumferential mobilization of the rectum down to the levator followed by suture suspension to promontory. Patients with preexisting constipation or who were unfit for general anaesthesia were not included. Incontinence, quality of life and constipation were assessed by validated scores. Recurrence-free curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-nine patients with a median age of 62 (15-93) years including 174 women and five men underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy. There was no mortality. The 30-day complication rate was 4% (partial transection of the left ureter, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, urinary retention, superficial surgical site infection). Data on 172 patients (96%) were available at follow up. There were 10 recurrences of FTRP at 5-year follow up giving a crude recurrence rate of 6%. The actuarial 10-year recurrence rate was 20% (95% CI, 10.8-20.1). Follow-up continence (P < 0.0001) and quality of life were better than preoperatively: lifestyle (P < 0.001), coping (P < 0.001), self-perception (P < 0.005), embarrassment (P < 0.06). Constipation was unchanged.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic suture rectopexy led to few complications, a recurrence rate of 20%, improved continence and quality of life with no worsening of constipation at 10 years.

Short-term outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Is robotic superior?

PURPOSE

Short term morbidity, functional outcome, recurrence and quality of life outcomes after robotic assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) were compared.

METHODS

This study includes 51 consecutive patients having operations for external rectal prolapse (ERP) in a tertiary centre between October 2009 and December 2012. Of these, 17 patients had RVMR and 34 underwent LVMR. The groups were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades. The same operative technique and mesh was used and follow up was 12 months. Data was collected on patient demographics, surgery duration, blood loss, duration of hospital stay and operative complications. Functional outcomes were measured using the faecal incontinence severity index (FISI) and Wexner faecal incontinence scoring. Quality of life was scored using SF36 questionnaires pre and postoperatively.

RESULTS

All patients were female except three (median 59, range 25-89). There was one laparoscopic converted to open procedure. RVMR procedures were longer in duration (p = 0.013) but with no difference in blood loss between the groups. The average duration of stay was 2 days in both groups. There were six minor postoperative complications in LVMR procedures and none in the RVMR group. Pre and postoperative Wexner and FISI scoring were significantly lower in the RVMR group (p = 0.042 and p = 0.024, respectively). SF-36 questionnaires showed better scoring in physical and emotional component in RVMR group (p = 0.015). There was no recurrence in either group during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LVMR and RVMR are similar in terms of safety and efficacy. Although not randomized, this data may suggest a better functional outcome and quality of life in patients having RVMR for ERP.

Robot-assisted or conventional laparoscoic rectopexy for rectal prolapse? Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The use of robotic technology has proved to be safe and effective, arising as a helpful alternative to standard laparoscopy in a variety of surgical procedures. However the role of robotic assistance in laparoscopic rectopexy is still not demonstrated.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out performing an unrestricted search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to 30th June 2014. Reference lists of retrieved articles and review articles were manually searched for other relevant studies. We meta-analyzed the data currently available regarding the incidence of recurrence rate of rectal prolapse, conversion rate, operative time, intra-operative blood loss, post-operative complications, re-operation rate and hospital stay in robot-assisted rectopexy (RC) compared to conventional laparoscopic rectopexy (LR).

RESULTS

Six studies were included resulting in 340 patients. The meta-analysis showed that the RR does not influence the recurrence rate of rectal prolapse, the conversion rate and the re-operation rate, whereas it decreases the intra-operative blood loss, the post-operative complications and the hospital stay. Yet, the RR resulted to be longer than the LR. Post-operative ano-rectal and the sexual functionality and procedural costs could not meta-analyzed because the data from included studies about these issues were heterogeneous and incomplete.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis showed that the RR may ensure limited improvements in post-operative outcomes if compared to the LR. However, RCTs are needed to compare RR to LR in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes, specially investigating the functional outcomes that may confirm the cost-effectiveness of the robotic assisted rectopexy.

Rectal prolapse: an overview of clinical features, diagnosis, and patient-specific management strategies

Rectal prolapse can present in a variety of forms and is associated with a range of symptoms including pain, incomplete evacuation, bloody and/or mucous rectal discharge, and fecal incontinence or constipation. Complete external rectal prolapse is characterized by a circumferential, full-thickness protrusion of the rectum through the anus, which may be intermittent or may be incarcerated and poses a risk of strangulation. There are multiple surgical options to treat rectal prolapse, and thus care should be taken to understand each patient's symptoms, bowel habits, anatomy, and pre-operative expectations. Preoperative workup includes physical exam, colonoscopy, anoscopy, and, in some patients, anal manometry and defecography. With this information, a tailored surgical approach (abdominal versus perineal, minimally invasive versus open) and technique (posterior versus ventral rectopexy +/- sigmoidectomy, for example) can then be chosen. We propose an algorithm based on available outcomes data in the literature, an understanding of anorectal physiology, and expert opinion that can serve as a guide to determining the rectal prolapse operation that will achieve the best possible postoperative outcomes for individual patients.