Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026
Cost-effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes of combined versus isolated robotic rectal and pelvic organ prolapse repair: A multicentre prospective cohort study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Wallace Shannon L, Ogilvie James W, Bordeianou Liliana, Earley Michelle, Platte Raisa, Weinstein Milena M, Sokol Eric R, Enemchukwu Ekene A, Mishra Kavita, Gurland Brooke H
Аннотация
AIM: Rectal prolapse (RP) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) frequently coexist, yet are often evaluated and treated separately. This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness of combined versus isolated robotic prolapse repair.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicentre cohort study across three tertiary pelvic floor centres. Women undergoing robotic rectal prolapse repair (rRP), robotic pelvic organ prolapse repair (rPOP) or combined robotic repair (rRP + rPOP) were included. Validated patient-reported outcome measures were collected at baseline and 12 months. Health utility was derived from EQ-5D-3L and used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the healthcare sector perspective. A theoretical cohort was modelled to examine staged versus combined repair in patients with multicompartment prolapse.
RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were included (rRP n = 14, rPOP n = 16, rRP + rPOP n = 17). All groups demonstrated significant improvement in pelvic floor symptoms and quality of life at 12 months. Improvements across bowel, bladder and prolapse-related domains were greatest in the combined repair group. Health utility gains were observed in all cohorts. In patients with multicompartment prolapse, combined robotic repair was cost-effective, whereas staged procedures were associated with higher cumulative costs without proportional gains in QALYs.
CONCLUSIONS: Within robotic prolapse surgery, combined rectal and pelvic organ prolapse repair provides the most comprehensive symptom improvement and represents a cost-effective strategy when both compartments are symptomatic. These findings support systematic evaluation for multicompartment prolapse and multidisciplinary surgical planning.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicentre cohort study across three tertiary pelvic floor centres. Women undergoing robotic rectal prolapse repair (rRP), robotic pelvic organ prolapse repair (rPOP) or combined robotic repair (rRP + rPOP) were included. Validated patient-reported outcome measures were collected at baseline and 12 months. Health utility was derived from EQ-5D-3L and used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the healthcare sector perspective. A theoretical cohort was modelled to examine staged versus combined repair in patients with multicompartment prolapse.
RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were included (rRP n = 14, rPOP n = 16, rRP + rPOP n = 17). All groups demonstrated significant improvement in pelvic floor symptoms and quality of life at 12 months. Improvements across bowel, bladder and prolapse-related domains were greatest in the combined repair group. Health utility gains were observed in all cohorts. In patients with multicompartment prolapse, combined robotic repair was cost-effective, whereas staged procedures were associated with higher cumulative costs without proportional gains in QALYs.
CONCLUSIONS: Within robotic prolapse surgery, combined rectal and pelvic organ prolapse repair provides the most comprehensive symptom improvement and represents a cost-effective strategy when both compartments are symptomatic. These findings support systematic evaluation for multicompartment prolapse and multidisciplinary surgical planning.