ArticleCureus2023
Outcomes of Laparoscopic Suture vs Mesh Rectopexy for Complete Rectal Prolapse.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
Objective To compare outcomes of laparoscopic suture and laparoscopic mesh rectopexy for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse in adults. Materials and methods This study was conducted between December 2020 to December 2022, involving 75 patients (Group A: 34; Group B: 41). Inclusion criteria encompassed confirmed complete rectal prolapse. Preoperative measures included comprehensive assessments, mechanical bowel cleansing, prophylactic antibiotics, and rectal irrigation. Surgical techniques involved laparoscopic suture rectopexy for Group A and laparoscopic mesh rectopexy for Group B. Postoperative care and follow-up evaluations were conducted. Results Group A demonstrated advantages in terms of shorter operative times, quicker bowel activity resumption, and reduced hospital stays. Intraoperative bleeding was absent in Group A, while wound-related complications were higher in Group B. Recurrence rates were lower in Group A (2.9%) compared to Group B (9.8%). Both groups exhibited improvements in incontinence grades postoperatively. Constipation increased in both groups. Conclusion Both techniques are effective in treating complete rectal prolapse, each with its advantages and considerations. Group A showed potential benefits in terms of operative efficiency and fewer complications, albeit with a potential for increased recurrence. The study emphasizes the need for individualized patient care, considering factors such as operative characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and patient preferences.
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.