ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2018
One decade of rectal prolapse surgery: a national study.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rectal prolapse: tailoring operative strategy to pathophysiology.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Development of a simulation-based laparoscopic ventral rectopexy module: skills training for minimally invasive pelvic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Perioperative management of colorectal surgical patients receiving a direct oral anticoagulant: a scoping review, particular emphasis on procedure-specific risks, and pharmacogenomics.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Ventral Rectopexy: An International Expert Panel Consensus and Review of Contemporary Literature.Diseases of the colon and rectum · 2025Article
- A comparative study between transanal and transabdominal approaches in treatment of complete rectal prolapse.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Article
- Abdominal ventral rectopexy with colectomy for obstructed defecation syndrome: An alternative option for selected patients.World journal of clinical cases · 2020Article
- Surgical options and trends in treating rectal prolapse: long-term results in a 19-year follow-up study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to investigate the development of common procedures used as treatment for rectal prolapse over a decade and to determine if the choice of primary operation affects the reoperation rate.
methodsThis is a retrospective analysis of operative data from a National Data Registry, Landspatientregisteret (LPR), from the period of January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2014. All hospitalized surgical treatments are registered in LPR.
resultsSixteen hundred and twenty-five patients with rectal prolapse underwent 1834 operations. There were 94% women and mean age at surgery was 71.6 ± 18.1 years, with no difference over the 11 years. The types of operations performed differed (p < 0.0001), with an increase in overall number of operations and increasing use of laparoscopic procedures. There were 209 reoperations, of which 129 patients were primarily operated with a perineal procedure. The mean age at reoperation was 72.8 ± 17.3 years. The most frequently used reoperation was laparoscopic rectopexy. The overall reoperation rate was 16%: 10% for both open and laparoscopic rectopexy, and for perineal procedures 26% (p < 0.001). The overall 30-day mortality was 2.1% and there was no difference in mortality between the procedures (p = 0.23).
conclusionsThe overall number of rectal prolapse operations was increasing. There was a clear trend towards extended use of laparoscopic rectopexy both as primary procedure and as reoperation. The highest reoperation rates were for the perineal procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29273884What 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.