ReviewClinics in colon and rectal surgery2025
History of the Treatment of Rectal Prolapse.
Review in Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 2025. 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.
- Laparoscopic Resection Rectopexy with Transanal Specimen Extraction for Complete Rectal Prolapse: Retrospective Cohort Study of Functional Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of rectal prolapse short-video content on tiktok and bilibili: A cross-sectional content analysis.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rectal prolapse is the intussusception of the rectum, resulting in its full-thickness protrusion out of the anus. Approximately 0.5% of the general population is affected by this condition, with a higher occurrence in women and the elderly. While benign, rectal prolapse can be debilitating, as it can cause pain, bleeding, mucus discharge, and fecal incontinence. The earliest documented records of rectal prolapse date back to Ancient Egypt (1500-1200 BC), describing laxatives and topical therapeutics for the treatment of an anus turned inside out. Many techniques were devised to hold the reduced prolapsed rectum in place, ranging from cords to the use of bandages. Surgical cauterization of the anal sphincter to prevent recurrent prolapse began as early as 6 BC in India, a practice that continued into the 1800s. Advances in fundamental understanding of the anatomy of the colon, rectum, and anus in the 19th and early 20th centuries paved the way for modern surgical approaches. The 20th century saw the development of procedures proposed by surgeons such as Delorme, Moschowitz, Ripstein, and Altemeier. The emergence of the laparoscopic rectopexy in 1992 and subsequent use of robotic-assisted techniques in the early 2000s marked the transition to modern rectal prolapse surgeries, improving both precision and outcomes. The overall management of rectal prolapse has evolved significantly from ancient remedies to the surgeries known today, yet some fundamental similarities remain consistent between today's outlook and what was documented centuries ago. Understanding the historical evolution of the diagnosis and treatment of rectal prolapse provides insight into the contemporary management of the disorder.
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.