Cure8
Robotic Ventral Rectopexy and Sacrocolpopexy with Biologic Mesh in an 88-Year-Old Woman with Crohn’s Disease: A Case Report
Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Cure8 research brief

Robotic Ventral Rectopexy and Sacrocolpopexy with Biologic Mesh in an 88-Year-Old Woman with Crohn’s Disease: A Case Report

2 min read

Why This Matters

The report describes a surgical option using robotic sacrocolporectopexy with biologic graft in an elderly patient with Crohn’s disease and recurrent multi-compartment prolapse.

Patients with IBD considering pelvic reconstructive surgery may be interested because Crohn’s disease and prior pelvic surgery can affect surgical choices and mesh-related risk.

Who Should Pay Attention

Patients with Crohn’s disease facing pelvic organ or rectal prolapse surgery; surgeons and clinicians managing complex pelvic floor disorders; caregivers of older adults with prior pelvic surgery.

Study Snapshot

Story typeResearch paper
Evidence typeResearch paper
Source depthJournal abstract

What To Know

This paper is a case report (abstract-level) describing an 88-year-old woman with Crohn’s disease who had recurrent multi-compartment pelvic organ and rectal prolapse.

After initial suture rectopexy, she developed anterior rectal wall prolapse and vaginal vault prolapse and underwent robotic-assisted sacrocolporectopexy with insertion of a biologic graft plus posterior colporrhaphy/perineorrhaphy. At six-week follow-up the authors report symptom resolution and improved anatomy.

The report illustrates that in a single medically complex, elderly patient with a history of Crohn’s disease the surgical team used a biologic mesh and robotic approach to avoid synthetic-mesh-related risks and achieved a short-term good anatomical outcome. This is a single-case experience and does not establish safety or efficacy more broadly.

If you are a patient considering similar surgery, discuss with your surgeon how your age, Crohn’s disease history, prior pelvic surgeries, and infection risk influence choice of graft (biologic vs synthetic) and the expected follow-up and outcomes.

Keep In Mind

Single-case, short (6-week) follow-up reported; posted as Research Square abstract-level content rather than a peer-reviewed full study. Findings are illustrative, not definitive.

Source Details

Review the original publication for the complete reporting, methods, and context.

Read Original Source
Research paper Evidence type derived from source or registry metadata.
PublicationSpringer Science and Business Media LLC
AuthorsJared Bradshaw, Melissa Hamrick, Mirelle M. Dawoud +3 more
Study typePosted Content
Indexed viaCrossref
Source typeResearch paper
PublishedNov 3, 2026, 12:00 AM
Content availableJournal abstract

This Cure8 brief is based on source text from the linked article. Cure8 is informational only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

Related Reading

Browse latest news →