ArticleSurgery today2021
What is the recommended procedure for recurrent rectal prolapse? A retrospective cohort study in a single Japanese institution.
Article in Surgery today, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between perineal and abdominal approaches for the surgical treatment of recurrent external rectal prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Ventral Rectopexy: An International Expert Panel Consensus and Review of Contemporary Literature.Diseases of the colon and rectum · 2025Article
- Surgical approaches for complete rectal prolapse.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Reduced port laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- The Predictive Risk Factor of Postoperative Recurrence Following Altemeier's and Delorme's Procedures for Full-thickness Rectal Prolapse: An Analysis of 127 Japanese Patients in a Single Institution.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe choice of surgical procedure for rectal prolapse (RP) is challenging because of the high recurrence and morbidity rates. We aimed to clarify whether laparoscopic suture rectopexy (lap-rectopexy) is suitable for Japanese patients with recurrent RP.
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 77 recurrent RP patients who had been treated on average 1.5 times between June 2008 and April 2016. Forty-one patients underwent lap-rectopexy and 36 underwent perineal procedures. We compared surgical outcomes and recurrence rate following surgery between the two groups. The multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine risk factors of recurrent RP.
resultsIn patients' characteristics, significant differences were observed in the type of anesthesia (p < 0.01) and length of recurrent RP (p = 0.030). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the lap-rectopexy group (p < 0.001). Blood loss, length of hospitalization, and postoperative complications were similar. The recurrence rate was significantly lower in the lap-rectopexy group (17.1% vs. 38.9%, p = 0.032). Multivariate analysis showed that only the laparoscopic approach was significantly associated with a low recurrence following surgery (odds ratio 0.273, 95% CI - 2.568 to - 0.032).
conclusionLap-rectopexy is recommended for recurrent RP because its low recurrence rate and safety profile are similar to those of perineal procedures.
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.