ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Mesh Rectopexy or Resection Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse; Is There a Gold Standard Method: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- [Surgery of rectal prolapse : Which treatment procedure for which patient?]Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Pooled it
- Short-Term Complications of Concomitant Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Rectal Prolapse Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2025Pooled it
- Rectal prolapse: tailoring operative strategy to pathophysiology.Techniques in coloproctology · 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
- First time use of trans-anal endorectal pull through (Soave procedure) for management of recurrent rectal mucosal prolapse in children not responding to the conventional sclerotherapy interventions: A case series.International journal of surgery case reports · 2025Article
- Managing recurrent rectal prolapse in women: a single-center study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Modified Altemeier Procedure as Management for Incarcerated Rectal Prolapse in a Young Healthy Male Patient: A Case Report and Literature Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Ethanol sclerotherapy in pediatric rectal prolapse: efficacy, complications, and influencing factors.BMC surgery · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Rectal prolapse is a benign condition that mainly affects females and the elderly. The most common symptoms are constipation and incontinence. The treatment of choice is surgical, but so far, there has been no gold standard method. The aim of this study is to compare the two most common intrabdominal procedures utilized for treating rectal prolapse: the resection rectopexy and the mesh rectopexy. (2) Methods: In this study, we conducted a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature and compared the two different approaches regarding their complication rate, recurrence rate, and improvement of symptoms rate. (3) Results: No statistically significant difference between the two methods was found regarding the operating time, the length of stay, the overall complication rate, the surgical site infection rate, the cardiopulmonary complication rate, the improvement in constipation and incontinence rates, and the recurrence rate. (4) Conclusions: Our study revealed that mesh rectopexy and resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse have similar short- and long-term outcomes. As a result, the decision for the procedure used should be individualized and based on the surgeon's preference and expertise.
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.