ArticleBMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies2023
The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse.
Article in BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- [Surgery of rectal prolapse : Which treatment procedure for which patient?]Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Pooled it
- Mesh rectopexy in rectal prolapse: toward consensus or continued controversy?Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Rectal prolapse: tailoring operative strategy to pathophysiology.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Surgeon preferences and practice patterns in rectopexy: Results of an international survey.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal approach for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. The aim of this international survey was to assess the patterns in treatment of rectal prolapse. Design: A 23-question survey was distributed to the Pelvic Floor Consortium of the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Pelvic Floor Society. Questions pertained to surgeon and practice demographics, preoperative evaluation, procedural preferences, and educational needs. Setting: Electronic survey distributed to colorectal surgeons of diverse practice settings. Participants: 249 colorectal surgeons responded to the survey, 65% of which were male. There was wide variability in age, years in practice, and practice setting. Main outcome measures: Responses to questions regarding preoperative workup preferences and clinical scenarios. Results: In preoperative evaluation, 19% would perform anorectal physiology testing and 70% would evaluate for concomitant pelvic organ prolapse. In a healthy patient, 90% would perform a minimally invasive abdominal approach, including ventral rectopexy (56%), suture rectopexy (31%), mesh rectopexy (6%) and resection rectopexy (5%). In terms of ventral rectopexy, surgeons in the Americas preferred a synthetic mesh (61.9% vs 38.1%, p=0.59) whereas surgeons from Australasia preferred biologic grafts (75% vs 25%, p<0.01). In an older patient with comorbidities 81% would perform a perineal approach. Procedure preference (Delormes vs Altmeier) varied according to location (Australasia, 85.9% vs 14.1%; Europe, 75.3% vs 24.7%; Americas, 14.1% vs 85.9%). Most participants were interested in education regarding surgical approaches, however there is wide variability in preferred methods. Conclusion: There is significant variability in the preoperative evaluation and surgery performed for rectal prolapse. Given the lack of consensus, it is not surprising that most surgeons desire further education on the topic.
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.