SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
Delorme's vs. Altemeier's in the management of rectal procidentia: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of rectal prolapse in octogenarians: lesson learned in 13 years' experience from a high-volume center.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- MR Defecography Improves Diagnosis of Postoperative Pelvic Floor Dysfunction After Gynecological Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Surgical approaches for complete rectal prolapse.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Anal sphincter function in rectal intussusception and high and low "take-off" external rectal prolapse-A prospective observational study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRectal prolapse is a distressing condition for patients and no consensus exists on optimal surgical management. We compared outcomes of two common perineal operations (Delorme's and Altemeier's) used in the treatment of rectal prolapse.
methodsA systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. Peri- and post-operative outcomes following Delorme's and Altemeier's procedures were extracted. Primary outcomes included recurrence rate, anastomotic dehiscence rate and mortality rate. The secondary outcomes were total operative time, volume of blood loss, length of hospital stay and coloanal anastomotic stricture formation. Revman 5.3 was used to perform all statistical analysis.
resultsTen studies with 605 patients were selected; 286 underwent Altemeier's procedure (standalone), 39 had Altemeier's with plasty (perineoplasty or levatoroplasty), and 280 had Delorme's. Recurrence rate [OR: 0.66; 95% CI [0.44-0.99], P = 0.05] was significantly lower and anastomotic dehiscence [RD: 0.05; 95% CI [0.00-0.09], P = 0.03] was significantly higher in the Altemeier's group. However, sub group analysis of Altemeier's with plasty failed to show significant differences in these outcomes compared with the Delorme's procedure. Length of hospital stay was significantly more following an Altemeier's operation compared with Delorme's [MD: 3.05, 95% CI [0.95 - 5.51], P = 0.004]. No significant difference was found in total operative time, intra-operative blood loss, coloanal anastomotic stricture formation and mortality rates between the two approaches.
conclusionsA direct comparison of two common perineal procedures used in the treatment of rectal prolapse demonstrated that the Altemeier's approach was associated with better outcomes. Future, well-designed high quality RCTs with long-term follow up are needed to corroborate our findings.
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.