ArticleEClinicalMedicine2019
Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical outcomes on health-related quality of life in rectal prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Pooled it
- Could robotic-assisted surgery reduce mesh-related complications after ventral mesh rectopexy? Experience of a tertiary centre and systematic review of the literature.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Pooled it
- Mesh-related complications and recurrence after ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic versus biologic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy versus posterior sutured rectopexy for management of complete rectal prolapse.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Minimally invasive resection rectopexy as a treatment method for obstructive defecation (ODS): functional outcome in ODS; constipation and fecal incontinence.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Beyond stapled transanal rectal resectionWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Review
- Recurrent Rectal Prolapse.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025Review
- Laparoscopic ileopexy for afferent loop syndrome after restorative proctocolectomy-a retrospective case series.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Obstructed Defecation Syndrome: Analysis of the Efficacy and Mid-Term Quality of Life of an Innovative Robotic Approach.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Current Evidence and How-To on Combined Sacrocolpopexy and Rectopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2024Review
- Outcomes of Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy Versus Laparoscopic Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2024Review
- Mental health disorders as a risk factor in young patients with rectal prolapse.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- Current diagnostic tools and treatment modalities for rectal prolapse.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
- The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Modified Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2023Article
- Tunneling of Mesh during Ventral Rectopexy: Technical Aspects and Long-Term Functional Results.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in adults with internal rectal prolapse and defecatory disorders.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Successful treatment of recurrent volvulus in the afferent limb of the pouch following proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis: a case report.Surgical case reports · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for rectal prolapse has been implemented to reduce postoperative bowel symptoms. The preoperative-to-postoperative change in a double-blinded, randomized study comparing it to laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) found no significant difference between the two procedures after one year. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term functional outcomes.
methodsFrom November 2006-January 2014, 75 patients were randomized to LVMR (n = 37) or LPSR (n = 38). In March 2017, questionnaires containing constipation symptom score (PAC-SYM), quality of life score (PAC-QoL), obstructed defecation score (ODS), Cleveland clinic constipation and incontinence scores (CCCS, CCIS) were mailed to all the patients included in the RCT. Prolapse recurrences and mesh complications were recorded. FINDING: Sixty-nine patients were available for long-term follow-up. Questionnaires were completed by 64 patients (94.4%). The median follow-up was 6.1 years. The total PAC-QoL was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.26 (0.14-0.83) compared to the LPSR group 0.93(0.32-1.61)(P = 0.008). The total PAC-SYM was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.5 (0.21-0.87) compared to the LPSR group 1.0 (0.5-1.5)(P = 0.031). Except for CCIS, the ODS and the CCCS significantly favored the LVMR group at six years (P = 0.011 & 0.017). Only three(8.82%) patients in the LVMR group developed recurrence compared to seven(23.33%) in the LPSR group (P = 0.111).
interpretationThe long-term functional outcome after LVMR is superior to that after LPSR. Larger multicenter studies are warranted.
fundingNone.
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.