Trial reportTechniques in coloproctology2014
Rectal mucosal prolapse in males: surgery is effective for fecal incontinence but not for obstructed defecation.
Trial report in Techniques in coloproctology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tools for fecal incontinence assessment: lessons for inflammatory bowel disease trials based on a systematic review.United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Pooled it
- Fecal Incontinence: The Importance of a Structured Pathophysiological Model.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2022Review
- Farm and animal-level risk factors associated with rectal prolapse in bovine and buffalo calves in Egypt with special reference to the optimal treatment strategy.Open veterinary journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the functional outcome of transanal surgery in male patients suffering from fecal incontinence, soiling, and obstructed defecation associated with rectal mucosal prolapse.
methodsAll male patients who underwent transanal surgery (either stapled or Delorme mucosectomy) for rectal mucosal prolapse associated with fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation were prospectively enrolled in the study. The recruitment phase was 17 months (April 2011 to August 2012). Symptom evaluation was based on the validated scores preoperatively and 12 months after surgery (Wexner incontinence score and Wexner constipation score). The primary end point was "success," which was defined as a 50 % reduction in symptoms. Using a decision-tree algorithm, patient groups with the highest and lowest chance of success were identified.
resultsThirty-eight male patients (mean age 51 years) underwent transanal surgery for rectal mucosal prolapse. The predominant symptoms were fecal incontinence in 31 patients (82 %) and obstructed defecation in 7 (18 %). Stapled mucosectomy was performed in 34 patients and Delorme mucosectomy in 4 patients. No major morbidity occurred. Symptom resolution for soiling was 77 %, itching and mucus secretion were improved in 47 and 50 %, and bleeding resolved in 89 % of patients affected. Functional outcome was good in 90 % (28/31) of the patients with fecal incontinence but in only 28 % (2/7) for obstructed defecation. The Wexner incontinence score decreased significantly (11.1 vs. 3.9, p < 0.01), whereas the Wexner constipation score was not influenced (18.4 vs. 15.6, p > 0.05). Using a decision-tree algorithm, a success rate of 96 % was observed in patients with fecal incontinence associated with younger age (age <45 years) and no presence of fecal urgency prior to surgery.
conclusionsTransanal stapled mucosectomy for rectal mucosal prolapse in males is effective for fecal incontinence, but not for obstructed defecation.
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.