Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35045155›Full record

Trial reportBJS open2022

Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial.

J Smedberg, W Graf, K Pekkari, F Hjern

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

NCT04893642 naterminatednot on this map

To Resect or Not Resect - The Randomized Swedish Rectal Prolapse Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorDanderyd HospitalRan2000 to 2018Enrolled134ConditionsRectal ProlapseArmsSuture rectopexy, resection rectopexy, Delorme's operation, Altemeier's operation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Surgical approaches for complete rectal prolapse.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J SmedbergDepartment of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
W GrafDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Section of Surgery, Akademiska Sjukhuset, Uppsala, Sweden.
K PekkariDepartment of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
F HjernDepartment of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SEUppsala University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Fecal IncontinenceRectal ProlapseHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalQuality of LifeRectum

Identifiers

PMID35045155
PMCPMC8769527
OpenAlexW4205297342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.