↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 Facebook page
3 Wikipedia pages


121 Dimensions

Readers on

209 Mendeley
Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001758.pub3
Pubmed ID

Samson Tou, Steven R Brown, Richard L Nelson


Complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse is a lifestyle-altering disability that commonly affects older people. The range of surgical methods available to correct the underlying pelvic floor defects in full-thickness rectal prolapse reflects the lack of consensus regarding the best operation. To assess the effects of different surgical repairs for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register up to 3 February 2015; it contains trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) as well as trials identified through handsearches of journals and conference proceedings. We also searched EMBASE and EMBASE Classic (1947 to February 2015) and PubMed (January 1950 to December 2014), and we specifically handsearched theBritish Journal of Surgery (January 1995 to June 2014), Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (January 1995 to June 2014) and Colorectal Diseases (January 2000 to June 2014), as well as the proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology meetings (January 2000 to December 2014). Finally, we handsearched reference lists of all relevant articles to identify additional trials. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgery for managing full-thickness rectal prolapse in adults. Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature searches, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The four primary outcome measures were the number of patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse, number of patients with faecal incontinence and number of patients with constipation. We included 15 RCTs involving 1007 participants in this third review update. One trial compared abdominal with perineal approaches to surgery, three trials compared fixation methods, three trials looked at the effects of lateral ligament division, one trial compared techniques of rectosigmoidectomy, two trials compared laparoscopic with open surgery, and two trials compared resection with no resection rectopexy. One new trial compared rectopexy versus rectal mobilisation only (no rectopexy), performed with either open or laparoscopic surgery. One new trial compared different techniques used in perineal surgery, and another included three comparisons: abdominal versus perineal surgery, resection versus no resection rectopexy in abdominal surgery and different techniques used in perineal surgery.The heterogeneity of the trial objectives, interventions and outcomes made analysis difficult. Many review objectives were covered by only one or two studies with small numbers of participants. Given these caveats, there is insufficient data to say which of the abdominal and perineal approaches are most effective. There were no detectable differences between the methods used for fixation during rectopexy. Division, rather than preservation, of the lateral ligaments was associated with less recurrent prolapse but more postoperative constipation. Laparoscopic rectopexy was associated with fewer postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay than open rectopexy. Bowel resection during rectopexy was associated with lower rates of constipation. Recurrence of full-thickness prolapse was greater for mobilisation of the rectum only compared with rectopexy. There were no differences in quality of life for patients who underwent the different kinds of prolapse surgery. The lack of high quality evidence on different techniques, together with the small sample size of included trials and their methodological weaknesses, severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It is impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical operations. Longer follow-up with current studies and larger rigorous trials are needed to improve the evidence base and to define the optimum surgical treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 209 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 15%
Researcher 22 11%
Unspecified 20 10%
Other 14 7%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Other 53 25%
Unknown 56 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 40%
Unspecified 19 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 2%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 61 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2021.
All research outputs
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 386,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 279 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,697 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 279 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.