ArticleBMC surgery2025
The feasibility, safety and short-term clinical efficacy of laparoscopic resection rectopexy with natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse.
Article in BMC 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.
- Laparoscopic Resection Rectopexy with Transanal Specimen Extraction for Complete Rectal Prolapse: Retrospective Cohort Study of Functional Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThere have been few reports that have focused on the combination of the laparoscopic approach and natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery for complete rectal prolapse (CRP). The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility, safety and short-term clinical efficacy of NOSE surgery with those of conventional laparoscopic resection rectopexy in the treatment of CRP.
methodsIn a group of 45 patients selected between January 2019 and October 2023, 28 patients underwent conventional laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR), and 17 patients underwent transanal NOSE laparoscopic resection rectopexy (NOSE–LRR). Preoperative and postoperative clinical variables of the two groups of patients were compared and analyzed.
resultsThe mean operation time was longer in the NOSE–LRR group than in the LRR group (150.29 min versus 134.18 min, respectively, p < 0.001). The median length of hospital stay after surgery was significantly shorter in the NOSE–LRR group (5 versus 7 days, respectively, p < 0.001). A significant reduction in the incontinence score and constipation score was observed in both groups after surgery (p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the postoperative constipation score or incontinence score between the two groups.
conclusionIn this study, LRR combined with NOSE appears to be a safe, technically feasible, cosmetically favorable, and effective surgical option for patients with CRP. NOSE–LRR was associated with a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay but a longer operation time. However, further large-scale cohort studies are needed to validate these findings.
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.