Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33051805›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2021

Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy Versus Transvaginal Posterior Colporrhaphy in Management of Anterior Rectocele.

Mahmoud Abdelnaby, Mohammad Fathy, Emad Abdallah, Mohamed Balata, Mohamed Arnous, Hany Maurice Mikhail, Sameh Hany Emile

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mahmoud AbdelnabyGeneral Surgery Department, Mansoura University Hospitals, Mansoura University, 60 El-Gomhouria Street, Mansoura, Dakahlia, 35516, Egypt.
Mohammad FathyGeneral Surgery Department, Mansoura University Hospitals, Mansoura University, 60 El-Gomhouria Street, Mansoura, Dakahlia, 35516, Egypt.
Emad AbdallahGeneral Surgery Department, Mansoura University Hospitals, Mansoura University, 60 El-Gomhouria Street, Mansoura, Dakahlia, 35516, Egypt.
Mohamed BalataGeneral Surgery Department, Mansoura University Hospitals, Mansoura University, 60 El-Gomhouria Street, Mansoura, Dakahlia, 35516, Egypt.
Mohamed ArnousGeneral Surgery Department, Mansoura University Hospitals, Mansoura University, 60 El-Gomhouria Street, Mansoura, Dakahlia, 35516, Egypt.
Hany Maurice MikhailGeneral Surgery Department, Qasr Al-Ainy Hospitals, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.
Sameh Hany EmileGeneral Surgery Department, Mansoura University Hospitals, Mansoura University, 60 El-Gomhouria Street, Mansoura, Dakahlia, 35516, Egypt. Sameh200@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7854-5244
Mansoura University · EGCairo University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundManagement of rectocele is challenging. Treatment usually starts with conservative measures and may involve surgical intervention in non-responding patients. We compared the outcomes of transvaginal posterior colporrhaphy (PC) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) in treatment of anterior rectocele.

methodsPatients with anterior rectocele who underwent PC or LVMR were functionally assessed using Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) was used for clinical assessment, defecography for anatomic assessment, and manometry for physiologic assessment. In addition, quality of life was assessed.

resultsA total of 231 female patients with a mean age of 39 years were included to the study. One hundred fifty-nine underwent PC and 72 underwent LVMR. The LVMR group showed significantly a better functional outcome as compared with the PC group (p < 0.0001). The mean of CCCS at 1 year after LVMR was 6 ± 2.3 vs 9.2 ± 1.2 after PC. The mean of PISQ-12 at 1 year after LVMR was 39.3 ± 2.8 vs 35.8 ± 2.2 after PC. LVMR showed better anatomic correction by defecography, had significantly higher quality of life scores, and had a longer operative time as compared with PC, yet with comparable incidence of complications.

conclusionPC and LVMR are both effective treatment options for treatment of rectocele. LVMR was associated with better anatomic correction and greater improvement in constipation, sexual symptoms, and quality of life compared with PC. Although LVMR had a longer operation time than PC, the complication rate of the two procedures was comparable.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresLaparoscopyRectal ProlapseAdultFemaleHumansQuality of LifeRectoceleSurgical MeshTreatment OutcomeFunctional assessmentMesh rectopexyPosterior colporrhaphyQuality of lifeRectocele

Identifiers

PMID33051805
OpenAlexW3091785922

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.