SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2012
Focus on abdominal rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: meta-analysis of literature.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimally invasive resection rectopexy as a treatment method for obstructive defecation (ODS): functional outcome in ODS; constipation and fecal incontinence.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Surgical approaches for complete rectal prolapse.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: the PEXITY study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Obstructed Defecation Syndrome: Analysis of the Efficacy and Mid-Term Quality of Life of an Innovative Robotic Approach.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Mesh Rectopexy or Resection Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse; Is There a Gold Standard Method: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The Predictive Risk Factor of Postoperative Recurrence Following Altemeier's and Delorme's Procedures for Full-thickness Rectal Prolapse: An Analysis of 127 Japanese Patients in a Single Institution.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2024Article
- Robotic-assisted rectosigmoid resection rectopexy with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE): technical notes, short-term results, and functional outcome.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Modified Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2023Article
- Predictive factors for functional failure of ventral mesh rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Article
- Mesh safety in pelvic surgery: Our experience and outcome of biological mesh used in laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Update on Robotic Rectal Prolapse Treatment.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Long-term outcomes of robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Surgical Treatment of Rectal Prolapse in the Laparoscopic Era; A Review of the Literature.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2020Review
- Surgical Treatment of Rectal Prolapse: A 10-Year Experience at a Single Institution.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2019Article
- Rectal-prolapse repair in men is safe, but outcomes are not well understood.Gastroenterology report · 2019Article
- Consensus Statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse.Techniques in coloproctology · 2018Review
- One decade of rectal prolapse surgery: a national study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Article
- Treatment of spondylodiscitis after rectopexy: surgery is always required.Techniques in coloproctology · 2017Article
- New-onset rectoanal intussusceptions after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a normal image?Techniques in coloproctology · 2016Article
- Age and cellular context influence rectal prolapse formation in mice with caecal wall colorectal cancer xenografts.Oncotarget · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic rectopexy to treat full-thickness rectal prolapse has proven short-term benefits, but there are few long-term follow-up and functional outcome data available. Using meta-analysis techniques, this study was designed to evaluate long-term results of open and laparoscopic abdominal procedures to treat full-thickness rectal prolapse in adults.
methodsA literature review was performed using the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database. All articles on abdominal rectopexy patients with a follow-up longer than 16 months were considered. The primary end point was recurrence of rectal prolapse, and the secondary end points were improvement in incontinence and constipation. A random effect model was used to aggregate the studies reporting these outcomes, and heterogeneity was assessed.
resultsEight comparative studies, consisting of a total of 467 patients (275 open and 192 laparoscopic), were included. Analysis of the data suggested that there is no significant difference in recurrence, incontinence and constipation improvement between laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy and open abdominal rectopexy. Considering non-comparative trials, the event rate for recurrence was similar in open and laparoscopic suture rectopexy studies and in open and laparoscopic mesh rectopexy trials. Improvement in constipation after the intervention was not statistically significant except for open mesh repair; postoperative improvement in incontinence was statistically significant after laparoscopic procedures and open mesh rectopexy.
conclusionsLaparoscopic abdominal rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure, which may compare equally with the open technique with regard to recurrence, incontinence and constipation. However, large-scale randomized trials, with comparative, strong methodology, are still needed to identify outcome measures accurately.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22170252What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.