Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28871416›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2017

Robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a single-institution experience.

C S Inaba, S Sujatha-Bhaskar, C Y Koh, M D Jafari, S D Mills, J C Carmichael, M J Stamos, A Pigazzi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

C S InabaDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
S Sujatha-BhaskarDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
C Y KohDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
M D JafariDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
S D MillsDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
J C CarmichaelDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
M J StamosDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA.
A PigazziDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA. apigazzi@uci.edu.
Color (United States) · US

Funding

University of California Health Participation in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)UL1TR001414 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI COOPER, DAN M, VILAIN, ERIC J. · 2015 to 2023
$35.1M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) is an appealing approach for the treatment of rectal prolapse and other conditions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of RVMR for rectal prolapse.

methodsWe performed a retrospective chart review for patients who underwent RVMR for rectal prolapse at our institution between July 2012 and May 2016. Any patient who underwent RVMR during this time frame was included in our analysis. Any cases involving colorectal resection or other rectopexy techniques were excluded.

resultsOf the 24 patients who underwent RVMR, 95.8% of patients were female. Median age was 67.5 years old (IQR 51.5-73.3), and 79.2% of patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists class III or IV. Median operative time was 191 min (IQR 164.3-242.5), and median length of stay was 3 days (IQR 2-3). There were no conversions, RVMR-related complications or mortality. Patients were followed for a median of 3.8 (IQR 1.2-15.9) months. Full-thickness recurrence occurred in 3 (12.4%) patients. Rates of fecal incontinence improved after surgery (62.5 vs. 41.5%, respectively) as did constipation (45.8 vs. 33.3%, respectively). No patients reported worsening symptoms postoperatively. Only one (4.2%) patient reported de novo constipation postoperatively.

conclusionsRVMR is a feasible, safe and effective option for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with low short-term morbidity and mortality. Multicenter and long-term studies are needed to better assess the benefits of this procedure.

Indexed as

Surgical MeshAgedConstipationFecal IncontinenceFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeRectal ProlapseRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment OutcomeAnterior rectopexyColorectal surgeryRectal prolapseRobotic rectopexyRobotic surgeryVentral mesh rectopexy

Identifiers

PMID28871416
OpenAlexW2751831500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.