Trial reportWorld journal of surgery2020
Laparoscopic Pelvic Organ Prolapse Suspension (Pops) Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Treatment of Rectal Prolapse: Prospective Cohort Study.
Trial report in World journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (SIUCP: Società Italiana Unitaria di Colonproctologia) guidelines for the management of obstructed and ineffective defecation syndrome.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Guideline
- 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
- Comparative study of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus perineal stapler resection for external full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients: enhanced outcomes and reduced recurrence rates-a retrospective cohort study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and pelvic organ prolapse suspension surgery (POPS) in management of patients presenting with rectal prolapse.
methodsOur study was a prospective cohort trial in which 120 female patients with complete rectal prolapse were included, 60 patients had had VMR and the other 60 had had POPS as a surgical management for complete rectal prolapse. Results had been compared 6 months postoperatively regarding operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, complications of surgery including recurrence of the rectal prolapse, the efficacy of each operation in treatment of rectal prolapse and associated symptoms.
resultsThe patients were assessed 6 months postoperatively. There was no significant statistical difference regarding hospital stay and postoperative pain. Operative time was significantly shorter in POPS in comparison with VMR (P value < 0.05). VMR showed slight improvement regarding constipation and continence scores; however, this was statistically significant. VMR showed less complications compared to POPS. Complications with rectopexy happened only with 4 patients compared to 24 patients in POPS groups, 2 cases of recurrence in rectopexy group compared to 6 cases of recurrence in POPS.
conclusionPOPS is comparable to VMR in management of rectal prolapse and in improving the ODS symptoms. Thus, POPS can be used as easier, faster option to treat rectal prolapse in selected patients.
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.