Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31506799›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2019

Ventral rectopexy with biological mesh for recurrent disorders of the posterior pelvic organ compartment.

M Brunner, H Roth, K Günther, R Grützmann, Klaus E Matzel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Redo ventral rectopexy: is it worthwhile?Techniques in coloproctology · 2021
    Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

M BrunnerDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Friedrich Alexander University, Krankenhausstraße 12, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
H RothDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Hospital Hallerwiese, St. Johannis Mühlgasse19, Nürnberg, Germany.
K GüntherDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Hospital Hallerwiese, St. Johannis Mühlgasse19, Nürnberg, Germany.
R GrützmannDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Friedrich Alexander University, Krankenhausstraße 12, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Klaus E MatzelDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Friedrich Alexander University, Krankenhausstraße 12, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. Klaus.Matzel@uk-erlangen.de.
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DESoma Central Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRecurrent prolapse of the posterior pelvic organ compartment presents a management challenge, with the best surgical procedure remaining unclear. We present functional outcome and patient satisfaction after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) with biological mesh in patients with recurrence.

methodsWe analyzed data from 30 patients with recurrent posterior pelvic organ prolapse who underwent VMR with biological mesh from August 2012 to January 2018. Data included patient demographics and intra- and postoperative findings; functional outcome as assessed by Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), Obstructed Defecation Score Longo (ODS), and Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS); and patient satisfaction.

resultsCCCS, CCIS, and ODS were significantly improved at 6-12 months postoperatively and at last follow-up. Patient satisfaction (visual analog scale [VAS] 6.7 [0 to 10]), subjective symptoms (+ 3.4 [scale - 5 to + 5]), and quality of life improvement (+ 3.0 [scale from - 5 to + 5]) were high at last follow-up. The rates of morbidity and major complications were 13% and 3%, respectively. There were no mesh-related complications or deaths. Difference in type of previous surgery (abdominal or transanal/perineal) had no significant effect on results.

conclusionsVMR with biological mesh is a safe and effective option for patients with recurrent posterior pelvic organ prolapse. It reduces functional symptoms, has a low complication rate, and promotes patient satisfaction.

Indexed as

Surgical MeshAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDefecographyFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPelvic Organ ProlapsePostoperative ComplicationsRectumRecurrenceTreatment OutcomeBiological meshFunctional outcomeLaparoscopic ventral rectopexyRecurrent posterior compartment prolapseRecurrent rectal prolapse

Identifiers

PMID31506799
OpenAlexW2973223922

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.