Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery:an international Delphi study of expert users

Background: Robotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion. Methods: We set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons’ characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis. Results: The 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy. Conclusion: Robotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit.</p

A Primer on Endoscopic Electronic Medical Records

Endoscopic electronic medical record systems (EEMRs) are now increasingly utilized in many endoscopy centers. Modern EEMRs not only support endoscopy report generation, but often include features such as practice management tools, image and video clip management, inventory management, e-faxes to referring physicians, and database support to measure quality and patient outcomes. There are many existing software vendors offering EEMRs, and choosing a software vendor can be time consuming and confusing. The goal of this article is inform the readers about current functionalities available in modern EEMR and provide them with a framework necessary to find an EEMR that is best fit for their practice

Surgical decision-making for rectal prolapse: one size does not fit all

Surgery remains the only known treatment option for rectal prolapse. Although over 100 abdominal and perineal procedures are available, there is no consensus as to which intervention is best suited for an individual. This retrospective cohort study describes the patient- and disease-related factors involved in making surgical recommendations around rectal prolapse in a single surgeon experience. 91 consecutive patients ≥18 years old diagnosed with external and/or high-grade internal rectal prolapse were assessed and were prospectively entered into an IRB approved registry. Information on patient symptoms, comorbidities, exam findings, surgeon judgment, and patient preference was collected. Treatment recommendations (abdominal, perineal, or no operation) were analyzed and compared. Surgical intervention was recommended to 93% of patients. Of those, 66% were recommended robotic abdominal procedures: 75%, robotic ventral mesh rectopexies; 16%, resection rectopexies; and 9%, suture rectopexies. On univariate analysis, patients with older age, higher ASA scores, presence of cardiopulmonary morbidity, pain as a primary rectal prolapse symptom, rectal prolapse always descended, and surgeon concern for frailty and general anesthesia were associated with recommendations for perineal operations (p 80 years of age, 15% were recommended an abdominal approach. With multiple options available for the treatment of rectal prolapse, treatment recommendations remain surgeon-dependent and may be influenced by many factors. In our practice, robotic ventral mesh rectopexy was the most commonly recommended operation and was offered to carefully selected patients of advanced age. Although robotic surgery and ventral mesh rectopexy may not be accessible to all patients and surgeons, this represents a single surgeon's practice bias. This study reinforces the importance of perineal procedures for higher-risk individuals

Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier

Purpose Data comparing surgical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) following perineal repair of rectal prolapse are limited. The aim of our study was to compare the shortterm outcome and QOL of two perineal procedures in patients with rectal prolapse. Methods All patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse admitted to our institution and undergoing Delorme and Altemeier procedures from 2005 to 2013 were identified using an institutional, IRB-approved rectal prolapse database. Short-term outcomes and QOL were compared. Results Seventy-five patients (93 % female) underwent rectal prolapse surgery: 22 Altemeier and 53 Delorme, mean age 72 ± 15 years. Sixty-six percentage of patients were ASA grade III or IV (Table 1). The median hospital stay was longer in Altemeier’s group [4 (1–44) days vs. 3 (0–14) days; p = 0.01]. After a median follow-up of 13 (1–88) months, the rate of recurrent prolapse was 14 % (n = 11) [Altemeier 2 (9 %) vs. Delorme 9 (16 %) p = 0.071]. Postoperative complication rate was 12 % (n = 9) [Altemeier 5 (22 %) vs. Delorme 4 (7 %), p = 0.04]. There was no mortality. The Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores in each group were 0.6 ± 0.2 and 0.5 ± 0.3, respectively (p = 0.59), and were not changed by the surgery. Conclusions In patients where abdominal repair of rectal prolapse is judged to be unwise, a Delorme procedure offers short-term control of the prolapse with low risk of complications and with reasonable function. In addition patients that recur after a Delorme procedure can undergo another similar transanal procedure without compromising the vascular supply of the rectum

The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse

Objective There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal approach for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. The aim of this international survey was to assess the patterns in treatment of rectal prolapse.Design A 23-question survey was distributed to the Pelvic Floor Consortium of the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Pelvic Floor Society. Questions pertained to surgeon and practice demographics, preoperative evaluation, procedural preferences, and educational needs.Setting Electronic survey distributed to colorectal surgeons of diverse practice settingsParticipants 249 colorectal surgeons responded to the survey, 65% of which were male. There was wide variability in age, years in practice, and practice setting.Main outcome measures Responses to questions regarding preoperative workup preferences and clinical scenarios.Results In preoperative evaluation, 19% would perform anorectal physiology testing and 70% would evaluate for concomitant pelvic organ prolapse. In a healthy patient, 90% would perform a minimally invasive abdominal approach, including ventral rectopexy (56%), suture rectopexy (31%), mesh rectopexy (6%) and resection rectopexy (5%). In terms of ventral rectopexy, surgeons in the Americas preferred a synthetic mesh (61.9% vs 38.1%, p=0.59) whereas surgeons from Australasia preferred biologic grafts (75% vs 25%, p&lt;0.01). In an older patient with comorbidities 81% would perform a perineal approach. Procedure preference (Delormes vs Altmeier) varied according to location (Australasia, 85.9% vs 14.1%; Europe, 75.3% vs 24.7%; Americas, 14.1% vs 85.9%). Most participants were interested in education regarding surgical approaches, however there is wide variability in preferred methods.Conclusion There is significant variability in the preoperative evaluation and surgery performed for rectal prolapse. Given the lack of consensus, it is not surprising that most surgeons desire further education on the topic