Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39538028›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2024

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse in male patients.

S H Emile, A Wignakumar, N Horesh, Z Garoufalia, V Strassmann, M Boutros, S D Wexner

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Surgical approaches for complete rectal prolapse.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

S H EmileEllen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd., Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
A WignakumarEllen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd., Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
N HoreshEllen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd., Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
Z GaroufaliaEllen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd., Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
V StrassmannEllen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd., Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
M BoutrosEllen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd., Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
S D WexnerEllen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd., Weston, FL, 33331, USA. wexners@ccf.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRectal prolapse often affects women but may also affect men. This systematic review aimed to provide outcomes of surgery for complete rectal prolapse reported in studies with a predominantly male population.

methodsThis PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review searched PubMed and Scopus between January 2000 and February 2024; Google Scholar was queried for studies reporting outcomes of complete rectal prolapse surgery in predominately (> 90%) male populations. Main outcome measures were recurrence, complications, operative time, and bowel function.

resultsEight studies (452 patients; median age 45.6 years) were included; 80.5% of patients underwent abdominal procedures whereas 19.5% underwent perineal procedures. The prevalence of recurrence was 11.2% after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR), 0.8% after posterior mesh rectopexy (PMR), 0 after resection rectopexy, and 19.3% after perineal procedures. The prevalence of complications was 13.9% after VMR, 13.1% after PMR, 43.3% after resection rectopexy, and 17.4% after perineal procedures. The most improvement in constipation was noted after resection rectopexy (83.3-100%) and in fecal incontinence (FI) was noted after posterior mesh rectopexy (86.4-90%). Abdominal procedures had lower rates of recurrence (6% vs. 19.3%, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21-1.18, p = 0.113), similar complication rates (14.3% vs. 13.6%, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.06-2.9, p = 0.374), and longer operative times (116 ± 47.2 vs. 74.2 ± 23.6 min, p < 0.001).

conclusionsTreatment of rectal prolapse in male patients undergoing abdominal procedures was associated with longer operative times, lower recurrence rates, and similar complications to perineal procedures. PMR and resection rectopexy had the lowest recurrence. The most improvement in FI and constipation was noted after PMR and resection rectopexy, respectively.

Indexed as

Rectal ProlapseAdultConstipationDigestive System Surgical ProceduresFecal IncontinenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePerineumPostoperative ComplicationsRectumRecurrenceSurgical MeshTreatment OutcomeMaleMeta-analysisOutcomeRectal prolapseSurgerySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39538028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.