Evidence Hub

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

Gialamas E, Uhe I, Tokoto PA, Liot E, Ris F, Wexner SD, Meyer J, Meurette G et al.

Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2026

4 citations

Abstract

Aim: Rectopexy 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.

Methods: An 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.

Results: A 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.

Conclusion: This international survey reveals marked variability in rectopexy practice worldwide. Despite common principles, surgeon preference and regional factors strongly influence decision-making.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free