Is robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for pelvic floor disorders better than laparoscopic approach at the beginning of the experience? A retrospective single-center study

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To compare perioperative results of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for pelvic floor disorders at the beginning of the surgical experience. Methods Between 2017 and 2022, the first 30 laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexies and the first 30 robotic ventral mesh rectopexies at the beginning of the experience of 2 surgeons were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative (demographic characteristics, surgical indication, conversion rate, operative time), and postoperative (complications, length of stay, unplanned reintervention) data were compared between groups. Results Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. Conversion rate was lower (0 vs 17%, p=0.05), but the operative time was significantly longer (192 ±37 vs 153 ±43 minutes, p<0.0001) during robotic procedure when compared with laparoscopic approach. In terms of learning curve, the number of procedures to obtain the same operative time between the 2 approaches was 15. Postoperative results were similar between groups, in terms of pain (visual analogic scale = 2.5 ±2 vs 4 ±2, p=0.07), morbidity (17 vs 3%, p=0.2), and unplanned reintervention (0 vs 1%, p=0.99). Mean length of stay was significantly reduced after robotic approach when compared with laparoscopic approach (3 ±2 vs 5 ±2.5 days, p<0.01). Functional results were better after robotic than laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, with higher satisfaction rate (93 vs 75%, p=0.05), and reduced recurrence rate (0 vs 14%, p=0.048). Conclusion Despite longer operative time at the beginning of the learning curve, robotic ventral mesh rectopexy was associated with similar or better perioperative results than laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.