Table 3.
Mid-term functional outcome comparison, in which incontinence and obstructed defecation results were matched by age, diagnosis and indication
| RVMR | LVMR | p | Difference1/ OR2 | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wexner scorea,b,, median (range) | 5 (2–12) | 7 (4–13) | 0.032 | − 1.71 | − 3.3 to − 0.1 |
| Significant ongoing incontinence symptoms (Wexner > 9)c, n(%) | 27 (32.9) | 33 (44.0) | 0.16 | 0.62 | 0.3 to 1.2 |
| Faecal incontinence discomfort (VAS)b,d, median (range) | 14 (2–56) | 32 (3–63) | 0.19 | − 6.71 | − 16.8 to 3.4 |
| ODS scoreb,e | 12 (8–20) | 12 (7–17) | 0.20 | 1.41 | − 0.7 to 3.5 |
| Significant ongoing OD symptoms (ODS > 20)c, n(%) | 24 (23.3) | 14 (15.9) | 0.21 | 1.62 | 0.8 to 3.4 |
| Obstructed defecation discomfort (VAS)b, d, median (range) | 55 (15–85) | 43 (18–71) | 0.16 | 6.91 | − 2.8 to 16.6 |
| Defecatory symptom change (VAS)b, f, median (range) | 72 (50–88) | 70 (51–87) | 0.76 | 1.21 | − 6.8 to 9.2 |
| Defecatory symptom improvement (VAS 61–100)c, n(%) | 59 (60.8) | 55 (64.7) | 0.59 | 0.852 | 0.46 to 1.6 |
Wexner/incontinence results were matched by age, ERP/IRP and indication (incontinence) (n = 119 pairs). ODS/obstructed defecation results were matched by age, ERP/IRP and indication (ODS) (n = 134 pairs)
RVMR robotic ventral mesh rectopexy; LVMR laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy; ERP external rectal prolapse; IRP internal rectal prolapse; CI confidence interval; QoL quality of life
aWexner score for faecal incontinence (minimum–maximum; 0–20)
bValues are reported as medians with 25th and 75th percentiles
cValues are reported as counts and percentiles
dVAS: visual analogue scale (no discomfort–great discomfort; 0–100)
eODS: obstructed defecation symptom score (minimum–maximum; 0–40)
f VAS: visual analogue scale (much worse–much better; 0–100)
1Difference between means
2OR: odds ratio (reference group: LVMR)
3OR: odds ratio (reference group: LVMR) for not satisfied with operation