Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33936886›Full record

ArticleCureus2021

Laparoscopic Versus Open Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Kailash Chandra Mohapatra, Narendranath Swain, Srikant Patro, Ashok Kumar Sahoo, Ashish Kumar Sahoo, Ashish Kumar Mishra

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kailash Chandra MohapatraSurgery, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, IND.
Narendranath SwainSurgery, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, IND.
Srikant PatroSurgery, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cutack, IND.
Ashok Kumar SahooSurgery, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, IND.
Ashish Kumar SahooSurgery, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, IND.
Ashish Kumar MishraSurgery, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, IND.
Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research · INSriram Chandra Bhanja Medical College Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

constipationincontinencelaparoscopic rectopexyrectal prolapse

Identifiers

PMID33936886
PMCPMC8080988
OpenAlexW3140234605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.