[Comparison of clinical efficacy of robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery in the treatment of severe rectal prolapse].

Objective: To analyze and compare the efficacy of robotic, laparoscopic and open dorsal mesh rectopexy in the treatment of severe rectal prolapse. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients who had a full-thickness rectum pulled out of the anus before surgery and the length was greater than 8 cm, and underwent transabdominal dorsal mesh rectopexy were enrolled in the study. Those who had urinary or sexual dysfunction before surgery, could not perform sexual function scores due to lack of a fixed sexual partner or sexual activity after surgery, underwent laparotomy again during the perioperative period, were transferred to laparotomy during robotic or laparoscopic surgery, or had no complete information, were excluded. A total of 61 patients with severe rectal prolapse in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from 2014 to 2018 were enrolled and divided into robotic group (20 cases), laparoscopic group (20 cases) and open group (21 cases) according to the operative procedure based on patients' will. Perioperative parameters were compared among the 3 groups. The International Prostatic Symptoms Score Scale (IPSS, higher score indicates more severe urinary dysfunction), the International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire (IIEF-15, lower score indicates more severe male sexual dysfunction) and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI-19, lower score indicates more severe female sexual dysfunction) were used to evaluate and compare the urinary and sexual function before and after operation. Results: There were no significant differences in baseline data among the 3 groups (all P >0.05). In the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups respectively, the operative time was (176.3±13.8) minutes, (160.2±12.1) minutes and (134.2±12.1) minutes; intraoperative blood loss was (58.5±18.9) ml, (67.9±15.7) ml and (114.2±8.4) ml; the first time to ambulation was (19.9±6.8) hours, (24.0±8.9) hours and (37.7±11.4) hours; the first time to gas passage was (31.8±6.8) hours, (35.7±8.9) hours and (49.2±11.2) hours; the hospitalization time was (11.0±1.4) days, (11.4±1.4) days and (13.3±2.1) days; whose differences among 3 groups were all significant (all P <0.001). While no significant differences in morbidity of complication and recurrence among 3 groups were observed (all P >0.05). In the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups respectively, the preoperative IPSS score was (4.2±1.7), (4.4±1.3), and (4.7±1.8); the IPSS score at postoperative 3-month was (8.5±2.5), (9.9±1.7), and (12.2±3.1); IPSS score at postoperative 12-month was (4.3±1.6), (5.8±1.3), and (6.3±1.5), respectively. Compared to preoperative score, postoperative IPSS score increased obviously, then decreased gradually ( P <0.001). Preoperative male IIEE score was (22.8±1.8), (22.1±2.1), and (22.6±1.5). In the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups respectively, male IIEE score at postoperative 6-month was (19.6±2.1), (17.1±2.1), and (15.0±2.1); male IIEE score at postoperative 12-month was (22.4±1.6), (19.9±1.5), (17.9±1.8), respectively. Preoperative female FSFI score was (26.4±3.4), (26.6±3.2), and (26.6±3.0); female FSFI score at postoperative 6-month was (21.5±3.3), (18.9±2.9), (17.0±2.6); female FSFI score at postoperative 12-month was (26.1±2.7), (22.7±3.2), and (21.2±2.3), respectively. Postoperative male IIEE score and female FSFI score decreased significantly and then increased gradually with time, whose differences were all significant (all P <0.05). Postoperative IPSS, IIEE, and FSFI scores in the robotic group were superior to those in the laparoscopic and open groups (all P <0.05). Conclusion: Robotic surgery is safe and effective in the treatment of severe rectal prolapse, and is more advantageous in preserving urinary function and sexual function.