SynthesisChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Surgery of rectal prolapse : Which treatment procedure for which patient?]
Synthesis in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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.
- [Pelvic floor reconstruction-An interdisciplinary overview].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExternal rectal prolapse is a rare condition that significantly impairs the quality of life. Surgery is the only curative treatment option.
objectiveDue to the variety of surgical procedures and the heterogeneous study landscape, uncertainty persists regarding the optimal surgical strategy. This study analyzes the available surgical techniques concerning their recurrence and complication rates and functional results. MATERIAL AND
methodsCurrent studies, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials on the surgical treatment of rectal prolapse were evaluated, considering both abdominal and perineal procedures.
resultsAbdominal procedures tend to show lower recurrence rates than perineal approaches, particularly in mesh-supported rectopexy. Although perineal procedures are more frequently used in older and multimorbid patients, no significant advantage is observed regarding perioperative morbidity. Overall, however, the study landscape is characterized by a high risk of bias.
conclusionThe high methodological heterogeneity of the studies makes a definitive recommendation difficult. Therefore, it remains unclear which approach is superior in the long term.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40711582What 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.