Evidence Hub

First time use of trans-anal endorectal pull through (Soave procedure) for management of recurrent rectal mucosal prolapse in children not responding to the conventional sclerotherapy interventions: A case series

A. Tadayon, H. Hosseini, O. Azh, Shayan Yousufzai, A. Rahmanian, M. Pourkhosravani

International journal of surgery case reports, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

Introduction Recurrent rectal mucosal prolapse in pediatric patients poses a therapeutic challenge, particularly when conventional treatments like sclerotherapy fail. This case series evaluates the Transanal Endorectal Pull-Through (Soave) procedure as a surgical alternative for children unresponsive to sclerotherapy, emphasizing its ability to preserve sacral plexus integrity. Case presentation Three pediatric cases (6.5-, 10.5-, and 14-year-old boys) with chronic constipation and recurrent rectal mucosal prolapse, unresponsive to sclerotherapy, underwent the Soave procedure. Hospital stays lasted 7–8 days, with no intra- or postoperative complications. Follow-ups at 6–12 months showed no recurrence, resolution of constipation, and high guardian satisfaction. Discussion The Soave procedure demonstrated efficacy and safety in treating recurrent rectal mucosal prolapse, with no recurrences or complications over one year. Unlike rectopexy, which risks constipation and incontinence, the Soave procedure preserves rectal integrity, minimizing pelvic trauma. Despite limitations such as small sample size and short follow-up, findings align with literature supporting minimally invasive techniques. Further research, including multicenter studies with larger sample sizes, is needed to confirm long-term outcomes. Conclusion The Soave procedure is a promising surgical option for recurrent rectal mucosal prolapse in children unresponsive to sclerotherapy, offering reduced recurrence and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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