Trial reportBJS open2022
Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BJS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04893642 (To Resect or Not Resect - The Randomized Swedish Rectal Prolapse Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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.
To Resect or Not Resect - The Randomized Swedish Rectal Prolapse Trial
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Surgery of rectal prolapse : Which treatment procedure for which patient?]Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Pooled it
- Surgical outcomes on health-related quality of life in rectal prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- Mesh rectopexy in rectal prolapse: toward consensus or continued controversy?Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic Resection Rectopexy with Transanal Specimen Extraction for Complete Rectal Prolapse: Retrospective Cohort Study of Functional Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Rectal prolapse: tailoring operative strategy to pathophysiology.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Techniques in coloproctology - controversies in coloproctology resection: rectopexy is an underutilised procedure in the management of both symptomatic high-grade internal and external rectal prolapse.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
- Addition of anal encirclement to perineal proctosigmoidectomy: a retrospective review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Rectal Prolapse Surgery: Balancing Effectiveness and Safety in Abdominal and Perineal Approaches.Cureus · 2024Review
- A network meta-analysis of surgical treatments of complete rectal prolapse.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Review
- Colonoscopy-assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy (CAPS) for complete rectal prolapse treatment: Case series.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
- Current diagnostic tools and treatment modalities for rectal prolapse.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
- The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2023Article
- A case report of largest rectal prolapse in the literature successfully treated with Altemeier's procedure.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Comment on: Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial.BJS open · 2022Article
- Author response to: Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial.BJS open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral different procedures have been described for surgical treatment of rectal prolapse and consensus on the optimal approach has not been reached. The Swedish Rectal Prolapse Trial was performed with the aim to compare the outcomes after the most common surgical approaches to rectal prolapse.
methodA multicentre randomized trial was conducted from 2000 to 2009. Patients were randomized between a perineal or an abdominal approach for correction of rectal prolapse (randomization A) if eligible for any procedures. Patients considered unsuitable for random allocation were only included in randomizations B or C. Patients in randomization B (perineal group) were randomized to Delorme's or Altemeier's procedures and those in randomization C (abdominal group) to suture rectopexy or resection rectopexy. Primary outcomes were bowel function and quality of life, measured using Wexner incontinence score and RAND-36, and secondary outcomes were complications and recurrence at 3 years.
resultsDuring the study period, 134 patients were randomized: 18 in randomization A group, 80 in randomization B group and 54 in randomization C group; of these, 122 patients underwent surgery. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years. Improvements in Wexner and RAND-36 scores were seen but with no significant difference between the groups. Health change scores were significantly improved from baseline up to 1 year after surgery (P < 0.001). At 3 years, recurrence rates were two of seven patients for abdominal versus five of eight patients for perineal approach (P = 0.315), 18 of 31 patients (58 per cent) for Delorme's versus 15 of 30 patients (50 per cent) for Altemeier's (P = 0.611) and four of 19 patients (21 per cent) for suture rectopexy versus two of 21 patients (10 per cent) for resection rectopexy (P = 0.398). There were no significant differences regarding postoperative complications.
conclusionFor all procedures, significant improvements from baseline in health change scores were noted after surgery. Recurrence rates were higher than previously reported. Registration number: NCT04893642 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
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.