ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2022
The role of rectal redundancy in the pathophysiology of rectal prolapse: a pilot study.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rectal Prolapse as a Rare Presentation of Colorectal Cancer: Case Series and Clinical Perspectives.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2026Article
- External rectal prolapse: more than meets the eye.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- A 54-Year-Old Man with a Large Rectal Prolapse Treated with Perineal Proctosigmoidectomy with Levatorplasty (Altemeier Procedure): Presentation of Case and Review of Literature.The American journal of case reports · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Rectal prolapse is hypothesized to be caused due to weakness of the pelvic floor which is related to childbearing. However, half of the female patients with rectal prolapse were reported to be nulliparous and this hypothesis doesn't explain the prolapse in males. The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of rectal redundancy in rectal prolapse pathophysiology. Methods: This study was conducted prospectively. Fourteen patients who underwent rectopexy were included in the study group. A total of 17 patients who underwent laparotomy for another reason and who have no symptoms regarding rectal prolapse were included in the control group. In order to measure the redundancy of the rectum, we have calculated the ratio of length of intraperitoneal rectum (R) to length of distance between promontorium and peritoneal reflection (PRx). The primary outcome of this study was to evaluate whether the R/PRx ratio is higher in patients with rectal prolapse compared to the control group. Results: Comparing the anatomic features showed that the length of sigmoid colon and length of PRx were not significantly different between the two groups. However, the length of intraperitoneal rectum was significantly higher in the prolapse group. Furthermore, the median R/PRx ratio in the prolapse group was significantly higher than in the control group. Conclusion: This study showed that intraperitoneal rectum in patients with rectal prolapse is significantly more redundant than in the normal population. This could be considered reasonable evidence for the role of rectal redundancy on rectal prolapse pathophysiology.
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.