1. Life after PROSPER. What do people do for external rectal prolapse?
- Author
-
A Senapati, S. R. Brown, C. K. Gunner, and John M. A. Northover
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Abdominal approach ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Surveys and Questionnaires ,Humans ,Medicine ,Practice Patterns, Physicians' ,Resection rectopexy ,Surgical treatment ,Laparoscopy ,Digestive System Surgical Procedures ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,business.industry ,Incidence (epidemiology) ,Gastroenterology ,Perineal approach ,Rectal Prolapse ,medicine.disease ,Colorectal surgery ,Surgery ,Rectal prolapse ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,030211 gastroenterology & hepatology ,business ,Colorectal Surgery - Abstract
Aim A questionnaire completed by members of the ACPGBI in 1997 was a precursor to the PROSPER trial. It showed a significant variation in favoured practice for the surgical treatment of external rectal prolapse. We repeated the same questionnaire to assess how practice has changed since the completion of the trial and its publication. Method An online survey was circulated to all members of the ACPGBI with identical questions to those used in the original in 1997. Results Similar numbers of recipients responded (122/791 [15.4%] in 2014;153/600 [25.5%] in 1997). The median number of operations per surgeon per year was unchanged (6 [0-30] vs 6 [0–25]). The percentage of surgeons who favoured an abdominal approach in fit patients in 1997 rose significantly from 63.5% to 81.7% in 2014 (P
- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF