Description Module

Description Module

The Description Module contains narrative descriptions of the clinical trial, including a brief summary and detailed description. These descriptions provide important information about the study's purpose, methodology, and key details in language accessible to both researchers and the general public.

Description Module path is as follows:

Study -> Protocol Section -> Description Module

Description Module


Ignite Creation Date: 2025-12-25 @ 3:21 AM
Ignite Modification Date: 2025-12-25 @ 3:21 AM
NCT ID: NCT00946205
Brief Summary: The aim of the present prospective, double-blind, randomized study is to study whether laparoscopic anterior mesh rectopexy is as good as laparoscopic posterior rectopexy with respect to obstructive defecation afterwards.
Detailed Description: Full-thickness rectal prolapse is defined as a "falling down" of the rectum so that it is outside the body. Rectal prolapse can only be treated by surgery. The choice of procedure depends on the patient's general condition and is based on a clinical judgment. Usually, elderly, high-risk patients are treated by perineal procedures. All other patients are offered an abdominal rectopexy using open or laparoscopic techniques. The general principle for all abdominal procedures is to induce adhesions between the mobilised, elevated rectum and the presacral fascia. At least 30%-60% develop long-term complications: Obstructive defecation, which may be related to peroperative trauma to rectums innervation. Sparing of the lateral stalks during the rectal mobilisation results in lower frequency of obstructive defecation afterwards, but also higher recurrence rate. A nerve-sparing laparoscopic technique for rectal prolapse has been developed in Belgium: Laparoscopic anterior mesh rectopexy. After this procedure, the rate of obstructed defecations afterwards has been reported to less than 10%, that is, much lower than observed after other procedures. The functional results after this nerve-sparing laparoscopic technique should be compared to those after laparoscopic posterior rectopexy, i.e. the conventional laparoscopic method.
Study: NCT00946205
Study Brief:
Protocol Section: NCT00946205