ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2023
A comparative study between transanal and transabdominal approaches in treatment of complete rectal prolapse.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2023. 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.
- Mesh rectopexy in rectal prolapse: toward consensus or continued controversy?Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Review
- Comparative study of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus perineal stapler resection for external full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients: enhanced outcomes and reduced recurrence rates-a retrospective cohort study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Article
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
Formulating clear guidelines for the most reliable treatment methods for complete rectal prolapse appears challenging. The authors designed this study to compare the results according to the approaches for female complete rectal prolapse and to suggest a more effective method. The transanal and abdominal groups showed differences in operating time, hospital stay, and recurrence rate. However, both groups demonstrated improvement in postoperative functional evaluation. PURPOSE: There is a wide variety of surgical methods to treat rectal prolapse; however, to date, no clear agreement exists regarding the most effective surgical method. This study was designed to compare the results according to the surgical approach for complete rectal prolapse in women.
methodsThis study was conducted from March 2016 to February 2021 on female patients with rectal prolapse who underwent surgery. First, all patients were classified into mucosal and complete layer groups to confirm the difference in results between the two groups, and only complete layer prolapse patients were divided into transanal and abdominal approaches to compare parameters and functional outcomes in each group.
resultsA total of 180 patients were included, with an average age of 71.7 years and 102 complete prolapses. The complete layer group was found to have more abdominal access, longer operating time, and higher recurrence rates compared to the mucosal layer group. (p<0.001) When targeting only the complete layer patients, there were 65 patients with the transanal and 37 with the abdominal (laparoscopic) approaches. The abdominal approach group had a longer operating time and hospital stay (p<0.001, respectively) and lower recurrence rate than the transanal group (transanal vs. abdominal, 38% vs. 10.8%, p=0.003), while the Wexner constipation and incontinence scores showed improved results in both groups.
conclusionAlthough operating time and hospitalization period were shorter in the transanal group, laparoscopic abdominal surgery is a procedure that can reduce the recurrent rate for complete rectal prolapse.
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.