Laparoscopic and robotic ventral rectopexy for posterior compartment disorders: a multicentric study in a gynecological setting

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive ventral rectopexy (VRP) performed for posterior compartment defects in a gynecological setting, according to laparoscopic (L-VRP) or robotic (R-VRP) approaches. METHODS: Women with symptomatic posterior compartment defects, including enterocele, rectal prolapse, and rectocele, who underwent L-VRP or R-VRP, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome was the evaluation of functional outcomes at ≥ 6-month follow-up; secondary outcomes included anatomical results, peri- and postoperative complications, and predictors of recurrence, postoperative constipation, and anal incontinence. RESULTS: A total of 102 women were included, 60 in the L-VRP group and 42 in the R-VRP group. Anterior sacrocolpopexy was performed in 70.6% of women (72/102). At a mean of 18-month follow-up, anorectal symptoms rate, constipation [L-VRP (17.7 ± 5.5) versus (2.5 ± 3.6): p < 0.001; R-VRP (15.2 ± 5.4) versus (2.6 ± 4.6): p < 0.001], and incontinence [L-VRP (11.6 ± 4.6) versus (1.1 ± 3.1): p < 0.001; R-VRP (10.7 ± 5.1) versus (1.2 ± 2.2): p < 0.001] Wexner scores significantly improved without difference according to the surgical route (p > 0.05). Posterior prolapse relapse was 1.0% (1/101), without difference between groups [L-VRP (1.7%;1/60) versus R-VRP (0%;0/41); p = 0.99]. Other anatomical and functional outcomes did not significantly differ between groups. One woman in L-VRP group (1.0%; 1/101) required the resection of the mesh for infection of the implanted material. No predictive factors emerged at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive VRP was associated with significant short- to mid-term anatomical and functional improvement and a low rate of perioperative complications. No statistically significant differences were observed between laparoscopic and robotic approaches; however, the study was not powered to demonstrate equivalence, and longer follow-up is required to assess durability and delayed mesh-related complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DIPUSVSP-27-07-2087 retrospectively registered.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Techniques in Coloproctology
Published
2026-06-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-026-03365-x
Primary Topic
Pelvic floor disorders treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Laparoscopic and robotic ventral rectopexy for posterior compartment disorders: a multicentric study in a gynecological setting

Marine Lallemant, Tomaso Melocchi, Alessandro Ferdinando Ruffolo, Sara Mastrovito et al.
Techniques in Coloproctology
Pelvic floor disorders treatments
article

Laparoscopic and robotic ventral rectopexy for posterior compartment disorders: a multicentric study in a gynecological setting

Marine Lallemant, Tomaso Melocchi, Alessandro Ferdinando Ruffolo, Sara Mastrovito, Giovanni Panico, Alfredo Ercoli, Giuseppe Campagna, Chrystele Rubod, Michel Cosson
article en

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive ventral rectopexy (VRP) performed for posterior compartment defects in a gynecological setting, according to laparoscopic (L-VRP) or robotic (R-VRP) approaches. METHODS: Women with symptomatic posterior compartment defects, including enterocele, rectal prolapse, and rectocele, who underwent L-VRP or R-VRP, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome was the evaluation of functional outcomes at ≥ 6-month follow-up; secondary outcomes included anatomical results, peri- and postoperative complications, and predictors of recurrence, postoperative constipation, and anal incontinence. RESULTS: A total of 102 women were included, 60 in the L-VRP group and 42 in the R-VRP group. Anterior sacrocolpopexy was performed in 70.6% of women (72/102). At a mean of 18-month follow-up, anorectal symptoms rate, constipation [L-VRP (17.7 ± 5.5) versus (2.5 ± 3.6): p < 0.001; R-VRP (15.2 ± 5.4) versus (2.6 ± 4.6): p < 0.001], and incontinence [L-VRP (11.6 ± 4.6) versus (1.1 ± 3.1): p < 0.001; R-VRP (10.7 ± 5.1) versus (1.2 ± 2.2): p < 0.001] Wexner scores significantly improved without difference according to the surgical route (p > 0.05). Posterior prolapse relapse was 1.0% (1/101), without difference between groups [L-VRP (1.7%;1/60) versus R-VRP (0%;0/41); p = 0.99]. Other anatomical and functional outcomes did not significantly differ between groups. One woman in L-VRP group (1.0%; 1/101) required the resection of the mesh for infection of the implanted material. No predictive factors emerged at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive VRP was associated with significant short- to mid-term anatomical and functional improvement and a low rate of perioperative complications. No statistically significant differences were observed between laparoscopic and robotic approaches; however, the study was not powered to demonstrate equivalence, and longer follow-up is required to assess durability and delayed mesh-related complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DIPUSVSP-27-07-2087 retrospectively registered.

Techniques in Coloproctology
University of Messina (IT), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Université de Lille (FR), Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic (IT), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (FR), Lille’s Cardiology Hospital (FR), Azienda Ospedaliera San Gerardo (IT), École Centrale de Lille (FR)
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Pelvic floor disorders treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.