ArticleCureus2021
Laparoscopic Versus Open Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic Resection Rectopexy with Transanal Specimen Extraction for Complete Rectal Prolapse: Retrospective Cohort Study of Functional Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Recurrence Prevention in Laparoscopic Wells Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse through Mesh Trimming and Fixation Techniques.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2026Article
- Outcomes of minimally invasive approaches to rectopexy: laparoscopic versus robotic.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Rectal prolapse in adult patients with anorectal malformations: considerations for adult colorectal surgeons.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Review
- Rectal Prolapse Surgery: Balancing Effectiveness and Safety in Abdominal and Perineal Approaches.Cureus · 2024Review
- Outcomes of Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy Versus Laparoscopic Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2024Review
- A network meta-analysis of surgical treatments of complete rectal prolapse.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Review
- Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical outcome of the Gant-Miwa-Thiersch procedure for colonic mucosal prolapse after intersphincteric resection-a single-center report from Japan.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Most of the patients with rectal prolapse complain of fecal incontinence followed by constipation. Surgery is the only definitive treatment option for rectal prolapse. There are two approaches: either transanal/perineal or transabdominal. The abdominal procedures can be done in the open laparotomy method or laparoscopically. Suture rectopexy is a very old and popular method of treating rectal prolapse. Nowadays, rectopexy by laparoscopic approach is considered the gold standard treatment for rectal prolapse. The study has been conducted to compare both the procedures and their outcomes in terms of conditions associated with rectal prolapse. Methods All consecutive patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse who had attended the surgery outpatient department were included in the study. The patients had undergone either open suture rectopexy or laparoscopic rectopexy after randomization. Assessment of postoperative pain, mean days of hospital stay, constipation, and incontinence score along with operative time, recurrence within six months of follow-up, and time to resume bowel activity were done. The patients were followed up for 18 months at regular intervals. Results A total of 58 patients were included in the study: 27 in the open group and 31 in the laparoscopic group. The operative time was 102 minutes versus 129 minutes (p=0.0001) in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The laparoscopic group had an earlier resumption of bowel activity (3.1 days vs. 1.4 days [p=0.0001]); fewer days of hospital stay (6.8 days vs. 2.5 days [p=0.0001]), less postoperative pain (mean visual analogue scale score for pain on postoperative day one 4.0 versus 3.1 [p=0.0035] and on postoperative day two 3.8 versus 2.2 [p=0.0001]). There was no significant difference in postoperative constipation score and incontinence score between the two groups. Conclusion Laparoscopic rectopexy results in lesser postoperative pain, lesser hospital stay, and better patient satisfaction than open rectopexy.
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.