International journal of colorectal disease · 2025
Scoping review of indications for robotic ventral mesh rectopexy: addressing variability in patient selection.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Grossi Ugo, Ascanelli Simona, de'Angelis Nicola, Sinatti Eugenia, D'Ovidio Angelo, Schena Carlo Alberto, Gallo Gaetano, Mollica Eleonora, Lauria Antonino, Frasson Alvise, Vittadello Fabrizio, Naldini Gabriele
Аннотация
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 Superseded studies, reviews, and non-relevant articles were excluded.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.
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.