ArticleJournal of the anus, rectum and colon2024
Comparison of Safety and Efficacy between Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy and Delorme's Procedure for External Rectal Prolapse in Nonagenarians.
Article in Journal of the anus, rectum and colon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objectives: This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) in nonagenarian patients with external rectal prolapse (ERP) compared to Delorme's procedure. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, including nonagenarian patients who underwent either LVR or Delorme's procedure, comparing outcomes such as morbidity, length of hospital stay (LOS), and recurrence rates. Results: Between September 2009 and August 2023, 22 patients (median age 91, range 90-94 years) underwent LVR, while 12 patients (median age 91, range 90-96 years) received Delorme's procedure. Baseline characteristics, including sex ratio, parity, American Society of Anesthesiology grade, and Body Mass Index, did not significantly differ between the groups. LVR had a significantly longer operating time but lower blood loss than Delorme's procedure. Postoperative LOS was significantly shorter for LVR patients (median 1, range 1-3 days) compared to Delorme's procedure patients (median 2.5, range 1-13 days; P = 0.001). Notably, no significant morbidity occurred in the LVR group, while one case of delirium and another of solitary rectal ulcer syndrome were observed in the Delorme's procedure group. Recurrence rates were lower in the LVR group, with no recurrences during a median follow-up of 23 months (range 1-65 months), compared to one recurrence at 2 months during a median follow-up of 34 months (range 1-96 months) in the Delorme's procedure group. Conclusions: LVR is a safe and effective surgical option for nonagenarian ERP patients, showing favorable outcomes in terms of morbidity, LOS, and recurrence rates compared to Delorme's procedure.
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.