ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2020
Impact of TRREMS on symptoms of obstructed defecation due to rectocele: predictive factors and outcomes.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A step-by-step approach to endorectal proctopexy (ERPP): how we do it.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Article
- To staple or not to staple the symptomatic rectocele.Techniques in coloproctology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the transanal repair of rectocele and rectal mucosectomy with a single circular stapler (TRREMS) on the treatment of obstructed defecation due to rectocele and to identify the predictive factors for unsuccessful results.
methodsConsecutive patients with obstructed defecation symptoms (ODS) associated with rectocele who had the TRREMS procedure were included. Each patient was assessed by echodefecography, manometry, and colonic transit time as well as the Cleveland Clinic constipation score (CCS) before therapy and at follow-up after 6 months. Reduction in the CCS score was calculated as a ratio. Factors correlated with a decrease in the CCS were analyzed in a univariate analysis.
resultsA total of 81 patients were included. Nineteen patients had postoperative complications that were not severe: 7 (8.6%) had tenesmus, 6 (7.4%) stenosis (4 treated with digital dilatation and 2 with endoscopic stricturectomy), 4 (4.9%) residual mucosal prolapse treated with rubber band ligation, 1 (1.2%) early bleeding, and 1(1.2%) thrombosis. Seventy-nine (97.5%) patients had a significant clinical response with significant reduction of the CCS constipation score from median 13 (range 17-10) to 4 (range, 8-2) (p = 0.0001); only 2 patients (2.5%) had an unsatisfactory response, complaining of straining and vaginal digitation during the evacuatory effort. Patients with anismus previously treated with biofeedback had a lower reduction ratio of the CCS score compared with patients without anismus (61.2 ± 2.8% versus 70.9% ± 1.5, p = 0.0006). There were no significant differences in the reduction of the CCS according to age, parity, type of delivery, previous hysterectomy, post-menopausal status, rectal mucosal prolapse and/or associated rectal intussusception, grade of rectocele and presence of complications.
conclusionsThe TRREMS procedure significantly improved evacuation disorders in this study. Appropriate selection of patients is key for the success of this approach. Anismus even if previously treated with biofeedback, was the main predictive factor of unsuccessful treatment.
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.