ArticleGastroenterology report2019
Rectal-prolapse repair in men is safe, but outcomes are not well understood.
Article in Gastroenterology report, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- External rectal prolapse: abdominal or perineal repair for men? A retrospective cohort study.Gastroenterology report · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRectal prolapse is a condition that occurs infrequently in men and there is little literature guiding treatment in this population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surgical approach and outcomes of rectal-prolapse repair in men.
methodsA retrospective multicenter review was conducted of consecutive men who underwent rectal-prolapse repair between 2004 and 2014. Surgical approaches and outcomes, including erectile function and fecal continence, were evaluated.
resultsDuring the study period, 58 men underwent rectal-prolapse repair and the mean age of repair was 52.7 ± 24.1 years. The mean follow-up was 13.2 months (range, 0.5-117 months). The majority of patients underwent endoscopic evaluation (78%), but few patients underwent anal manometry (16%), defecography (9%) or ultrasound (3%). Ten patients (17%) underwent biofeedback/pelvic-floor physical therapy prior to repair. Nineteen patients (33%) underwent a perineal approach (most were perineal proctosigmoidectomy). Thirty-nine patients (67%) underwent repair using an abdominal approach (all were suture rectopexy) and, of these, 77% were completed using a minimally invasive technique. The overall complication rate was 26% including urinary retention (16%), which was more common in patients undergoing the perineal approach (32% vs. 8%,
conclusionRectal-prolapse repair in men is safe and has a low recurrence rate; however, sexual function was poorly recorded across all institutions. Further studies are needed to evaluate to best approach to and functional outcomes of rectal-prolapse repair in men.
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.