Introduction: Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) has gained popularity as a surgical solution for rectal prolapse. However, significant variability exists in patient selection criteria, preoperative evaluation, and reporting standards. This scoping review analyzes indications for robotic VMR (RVMR) and highlights areas requiring further standardization. Methods: The review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were completed through December 4, 2024. Studies reporting on RVMR were screened in a three-step process, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Key data extracted included patient demographics, indications, preoperative workup, and surgical details. Superseded studies, reviews, and non-relevant articles were excluded. Results: Of 783 articles identified, 24 studies comprising 930 patients met inclusion criteria. External rectal prolapse was the most common indication (47%), followed by intussusception (38%), rectocele (9%), combined abnormalities (5%), and enterocele (1%). Preoperative imaging was inconsistently reported, with only 67% of studies describing imaging protocols. Symptom-based indications using standardized scoring systems were rare (17%). Synthetic mesh was used in 87% of cases. RVMR showed favorable functional outcomes, with low recurrence and complication rates. Conclusions: Significant heterogeneity exists in indications and preoperative evaluation for RVMR, limiting comparability across studies. While evidence supports its safety and efficacy, future research should focus on standardizing selection criteria and evaluating long-term outcomes.

Scoping review of indications for robotic ventral mesh rectopexy: addressing variability in patient selection

Ascanelli, Simona
Secondo
;
de'Angelis, Nicola;
2025

Abstract

Introduction: Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) has gained popularity as a surgical solution for rectal prolapse. However, significant variability exists in patient selection criteria, preoperative evaluation, and reporting standards. This scoping review analyzes indications for robotic VMR (RVMR) and highlights areas requiring further standardization. Methods: The review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were completed through December 4, 2024. Studies reporting on RVMR were screened in a three-step process, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Key data extracted included patient demographics, indications, preoperative workup, and surgical details. Superseded studies, reviews, and non-relevant articles were excluded. Results: Of 783 articles identified, 24 studies comprising 930 patients met inclusion criteria. External rectal prolapse was the most common indication (47%), followed by intussusception (38%), rectocele (9%), combined abnormalities (5%), and enterocele (1%). Preoperative imaging was inconsistently reported, with only 67% of studies describing imaging protocols. Symptom-based indications using standardized scoring systems were rare (17%). Synthetic mesh was used in 87% of cases. RVMR showed favorable functional outcomes, with low recurrence and complication rates. Conclusions: Significant heterogeneity exists in indications and preoperative evaluation for RVMR, limiting comparability across studies. While evidence supports its safety and efficacy, future research should focus on standardizing selection criteria and evaluating long-term outcomes.
2025
Grossi, Ugo; Ascanelli, Simona; De'Angelis, Nicola; Sinatti, Eugenia; D'Ovidio, Angelo; Schena, Carlo Alberto; Gallo, Gaetano; Mollica, Eleonora; Laur...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Scopin review of indication of robotic rectopexy Grossi Sscanelli 2025.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Full text editoriale
Tipologia: Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 731.48 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
731.48 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2587610
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact