Robot-assisted or conventional laparoscoic rectopexy for rectal prolapse? Systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: The use of robotic technology has proved to be safe and effective, arising as a helpful alternative to standard laparoscopy in a variety of surgical procedures. However the role of robotic assistance in laparoscopic rectopexy is still not demonstrated. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was carried out performing an unrestricted search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to 30th June 2014. Reference lists of retrieved articles and review articles were manually searched for other relevant studies. We meta-analyzed the data currently available regarding the incidence of recurrence rate of rectal prolapse, conversion rate, operative time, intra-operative blood loss, post-operative complications, re-operation rate and hospital stay in robot-assisted rectopexy (RC) compared to conventional laparoscopic rectopexy (LR). Results: Six studies were included resulting in 340 patients. The meta-analysis showed that the RR does not influence the recurrence rate of rectal prolapse, the conversion rate and the re-operation rate, whereas it decreases the intra-operative blood loss, the post-operative complications and the hospital stay. Yet, the RR resulted to be longer than the LR. Post-operative ano-rectal and the sexual functionality and procedural costs could not meta-analyzed because the data from included studies about these issues were heterogeneous and incomplete. Conclusion: The meta-analysis showed that the RR may ensure limited improvements in post-operative outcomes if compared to the LR. However, RCTs are needed to compare RR to LR in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes, specially investigating the functional outcomes that may confirm the cost-effectiveness of the robotic assisted rectopexy.