ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2022
A quantitative study to explore functional outcomes following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2022. 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mesh-associated complications in minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes of combined versus isolated robotic rectal and pelvic organ prolapse repair: A multicentre prospective cohort study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026Article
- Mesh rectopexy in rectal prolapse: toward consensus or continued controversy?Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Comparative Outcomes of Transabdominal and Transperineal Approaches for Full-Thickness Rectal Prolapse Repair: A Fourteen-Year Retrospective Study.Gastroenterology research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byA biologic dare?2024
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRectal prolapse is a life-altering problem and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is emerging as the surgical intervention of choice. However, the literature is ambiguous on its effect on bowel function and sparse as regards bladder and sexual function. This study assesses short-term functional outcomes following LVMR. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis quantitative retrospective study with a pretest-post-test design included 130 adults who had undergone LVMR from October 2010 to December 2018 in a tertiary centre. Analysis with paired-samples
resultsThe median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 48-74 years); 123 (94.6%) were female. The median length of stay was two days (interquartile range, 1-2 days). A total of 104 (80%) sets of medical notes were reviewed. One patient had recurrence of rectal prolapse. Synthetic mesh was used in 24 patients (23.1%) and biological mesh in 80 (76.9%). One patient had extrusion of a synthetic mesh and required surgery; 31(23.8%) completed the Electronic Patient Assessment Questionnaire for Pelvic Floor. Overall, the improvement in bladder function was not statistically significant (
conclusionsLVMR improves bowel function overall, although it can worsen constipation. It has the potential to improve sexual function but makes negligible difference to bladder function.
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.