ArticleUpdates in surgery2025
Management of rectal prolapse in octogenarians: lesson learned in 13 years' experience from a high-volume center.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When treating rectal prolapse, traditionally perineal procedures are recommended for elderly patients, while abdominal approaches are usually preferred in healthier and younger ones. We hypothesize that octogenarian patients can be safely treated with abdominal approaches. Our study aimed to evaluate the safety of abdominal procedures in the treatment of rectal prolapsed and to evaluate the recurrence rate. We conducted a retrospective IRB approved review of all patients ≥ 80 years old who underwent rectal prolapse surgery from 2010 to 2023 in our tertiary referral center. Patients were grouped according to the approach used to treat the prolapse (perineal or abdominal). Of the 164 patients included, abdominal approaches were performed in 58 (35.4%) and perineal in 106 (64.6%). Comparing the two approaches, no differences were observed in the female sex (96.6% vs 93.4%. p = 0.5), mean BMI (22.7 vs 23.8 kg/m
Indexed as
Identifiers
40601240What 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.