ReviewCureus2024
Rectal Prolapse Surgery: Balancing Effectiveness and Safety in Abdominal and Perineal Approaches.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Levator Hiatus Area detected by 3D-TPUS as an indicator of rectal prolapse severity.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Comparative Outcomes of Transabdominal and Transperineal Approaches for Full-Thickness Rectal Prolapse Repair: A Fourteen-Year Retrospective Study.Gastroenterology research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The event in which the entire thickness of the rectum protrudes through the anal canal is called rectal prolapse. This ailment is common in the elderly population and especially in females. It causes some disastrous symptoms, including incontinence to feces and flatus, constipation, and discomfort, because of the weakness in the anorectal junction, making it mandatory for surgical correction. Over time, several surgical techniques have been developed; these are broadly classified into two categories: abdominal and perineal techniques. However, the best approach for surgery that minimizes recurrence while maximizing patient quality of life is still up for debate. A comprehensive review was conducted adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines; a systematic search of the PubMed Database was performed to identify studies published between 2000 and 2024 with the keywords ((Rectal Prolapse) AND ("Perineal" OR "Laparotomy")). The inclusion criteria were focused on studies comparing the outcomes between surgical approaches at the abdominal and perineal locations, particularly on the recurrence rate, postoperative complications, and functional outcomes. In total, 21 studies were included in the review: these ranged from retrospective analysis and prospective studies to a multicentric randomized trial. In this review, abdominal approaches, particularly in the form of laparoscopic rectopexy, consistently demonstrated improved results compared to perineal techniques, with a much lower recurrence rate. The rates of mortality and morbidity were also remarkably lower in laparoscopic operations, which were advocated for suitable patients. However, perineal approaches, while still producing higher rates of recurrence, are a valuable alternative for elderly and high-risk patients due to their being relatively less invasive. Laparoscopic rectopexy can be considered a better surgical method for rectal prolapse, as it has a lower recurrence rate and better functional outcomes. In contrast, perineal approaches will have their place in the management of rectal prolapse, given patient selection for patients at high risk with regard to surgery. Future research should be directed toward multicenter trials with long-term outcomes in order further to fine-tune surgery strategy and criteria for patient selection.
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.