Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: A Comprehensive Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rectal prolapse, a debilitating condition, often requires surgical intervention. Laparoscopic techniques, such as posterior mesh rectopexy and suture rectopexy, have been increasingly employed due to their minimally invasive nature. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of these procedures in treating rectal prolapse, focusing on long-term recurrence rates, postoperative recovery, and operative factors. Objective: To assess the effects of laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy and laparoscopic suture rectopexy on patients with rectal prolapse, particularly regarding long-term recurrence rates, postoperative recovery, and operational aspects. Methods: The study involved 14 patients with rectal prolapse, of whom 12 underwent laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy and 2 underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy. Key factors such as the duration of hospital stay, necessity of blood transfusions during the procedure, and changes in constipation status were recorded. A mean follow-up duration of 94 months (7.83 years) was used to evaluate recurrence rates. Results: The average operating time for the laparoscopic procedures was 120 minutes, with no intraoperative blood transfusions required. Postoperatively, 28.57% of patients reported improvement in constipation, 21.42% experienced no change, and 35.71% saw a worsening of symptoms. Notably, no recurrences of rectal prolapse were observed during the follow-up period. The average hospital stay was four days. Conclusion: Laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy and laparoscopic suture rectopexy are effective and safe in the treatment of rectal prolapse. They demonstrate promising results in terms of operative characteristics, recovery time, and long-term recurrence rates. The findings support the use of these laparoscopic techniques as viable surgical options for rectal prolapse, with positive implications for long-term patient outcomes and constipation management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".