Trial reportTrials2012
DeloRes trial: study protocol for a randomized trial comparing two standardized surgical approaches in rectal prolapse - Delorme's procedure versus resection rectopexy.
Trial report in Trials, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of patients with rectal prolapse: the 2017 Dutch guidelines.Techniques in coloproctology · 2018Guideline
- Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Single-Layer Continuous Versus Double-Layer Continuous Suture in Colonic Anastomoses-a Randomized Multicentre Trial (ANATECH Trial).Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2016Trial
- Longer prolapsed rectum length increases recurrence risk after Delorme's procedure.Annals of coloproctology · 2022Article
- Strangulated recurrent rectal prolapse after a Delorme intervention, a case report.Clinical case reports · 2019Article
- Surgical options and trends in treating rectal prolapse: long-term results in a 19-year follow-up study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2018Article
- What operation for recurrent rectal prolapse after previous Delorme's procedure? A practical reality.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2016Article
- New kid on the block: perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSP) is it worthwhile in the long-term?Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2016Article
- Laparoscopic Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Will it be the Gold Standard?The Indian journal of surgery · 2014Article
- The evidence base for rectal prolapse surgery: is resection rectopexy worth the risk?Techniques in coloproctology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMore than 100 surgical approaches to treat rectal prolapse have been described. These can be done through the perineum or transabdominally. Delorme's procedure is the most frequently used perineal, resection rectopexy the most commonly used abdominal procedure. Recurrences seem more common after perineal compared to abdominal techniques, but the latter may carry a higher risk of peri- and postoperative morbidity and mortality. METHODS/
designDeloRes is a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded multicenter trial with two parallel groups. Patients with a full-thickness rectal prolapse (third degree prolapse), considered eligible for both operative methods are included. The primary outcome is time to recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse during the 24 months following primary surgery. Secondary endpoints are time to and incidence of recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse during the 5-year follow-up, duration of surgery, morbidity, hospital stay, quality of life, constipation, and fecal incontinence. A meta-analysis was done on the basis of the available data on recurrence rates from 17 publications comprising 1,140 patients. Based on the results of a meta-analysis it is assumed that the recurrence rate after 2 years is 20% for Delorme's procedure and 5% for resection rectopexy. Considering a rate of lost to follow-up without recurrence of 30% a total of 130 patients (2 x 65 patients) was calculated as an adequate sample size to assure a power of 80% for the confirmatory analysis. DISCUSSION: The DeloRes Trial will clarify which procedure results in a smaller recurrence rate but also give information on how morbidity and functional results compare.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trial Number DRKS00000482.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.