University of Oulu

Laitakari, K.E., Mäkelä-Kaikkonen, J.K., Kössi, J. et al. Mid-term functional and quality of life outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: multicenter comparative matched-pair analyses. Tech Coloproctol 26, 253–260 (2022).

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

Saved in:
Author: Laitakari, K. E.1,2; Mäkelä-Kaikkonen, J. K.1,2; Kössi, J.3;
Organizations: 1Department of Surgery, Division of Gastroenterology, Oulu University Hospital, PO Box 21, 90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland
2Medical Research Center Oulu, Center of Surgical Research, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
3Department of Surgery, Päijät-Häme Central Hospital, Lahti, Finland
4Department of Surgery, Keski-Suomi Central Hospital, Jyväskylä, Finland
5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland
6Division of Operative Care, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland
7The Research Unit of Surgery, Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
Format: article
Version: published version
Access: open
Online Access: PDF Full Text (PDF, 0.5 MB)
Persistent link:
Language: English
Published: Springer Nature, 2022
Publish Date: 2022-07-07


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.

see all

Series: Techniques in coloproctology
ISSN: 1123-6337
ISSN-E: 1128-045X
ISSN-L: 1123-6337
Volume: 26
Issue: 4
Pages: 253 - 260
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-021-02563-z
Type of Publication: A1 Journal article – refereed
Field of Science: 3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiology
Funding: Open Access funding provided by University of Oulu including Oulu University Hospital. State research funding, Scholarship Fund of the University of Oulu, The Gastroenterological Research Foundation, and Orion Research Foundation sr.
Copyright information: © The Author(s) 2021. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit