Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41486360›Full record

ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2026

Surgeon preferences and practice patterns in rectopexy: Results of an international survey.

Eleftherios Gialamas, Isabelle Uhe, Pierre-Alain Tokoto, Emilie Liot, Frédéric Ris, Steven D Wexner, Jeremy Meyer, Guillaume Meurette, International Rectopexy Collaborative Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Surgeon preferences and practice patterns in rectopexy: Results of an international survey.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026
    Article
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

9 authors.

Eleftherios GialamasDivision of Abdominal Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7557-7953
Isabelle UheDivision of Abdominal Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1224-2296
Pierre-Alain TokotoDivision of Abdominal Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Emilie LiotDivision of Abdominal Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Frédéric RisDivision of Abdominal Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Steven D WexnerDepartment of Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8046-5753
Jeremy MeyerDivision of Abdominal Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Guillaume MeuretteDivision of Abdominal Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
International Rectopexy Collaborative Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimRectopexy is the preferred abdominal intervention for rectal prolapse. Despite similar procedural steps - rectal mobilisation, prolapse reduction, and fixation - techniques vary widely, and onsensus on the optimal approach is lacking. This study aimed to assess global surgeon preferences and practices in rectopexy.

methodsAn international 28-item online survey was distributed between November 2023 and March 2024 through professional networks and social media. Questions addressed surgeon demographics, perioperative strategies, and technical approaches to rectopexy. Responses were analysed descriptively and stratified by region and specialty.

resultsA total of 226 surgeons from 36 countries across four continents completed the survey. Most respondents (79.6%) administered preoperative intravenous antibiotics, and 80.5% used some form of mechanical bowel preparation. Minimally invasive approaches predominated (81%), with laparoscopy being most common. Posterior dissection was preferred by 61.5%, while 38.5% favoured ventral (anterior) dissection. Two-thirds (68.1%) routinely used mesh, predominantly synthetic. Only 15% performed rectopexy as a day-case procedure. Regional and specialty-related variations were evident in approach, mesh type, and perioperative protocols.

conclusionThis international survey reveals marked variability in rectopexy practice worldwide. Despite common principles, surgeon preference and regional factors strongly influence decision-making. The findings emphasise the need for updated international guidelines to harmonise technique selection and perioperative management in rectal prolapse surgery.

Indexed as

Colorectal SurgeryColorectal Surgical ProceduresPractice Patterns, Physicians'Rectal ProlapseSurgeonsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansInternationalityMaleMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicRectumSurgical Meshrectal prolapserectopexysurgeon's preferencesurvey

Identifiers

PMID41486360
PMCPMC12765771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.