Invited commentary

Abstract

The chapter by Murad-Regadas, Pinto and Wexner comprehensively centers the place of the common abdominal procedures for the treatment of rectal prolapse, particularly examining the role of more minimally invasive approaches. The emergence of some of these newer technologies has, somewhat paradoxically, made the choice for patients presenting with full-thickness rectal prolapse a little more complicated, since there is scarce prospective trialling of some of these novel techniques with any durable outcomes available. I believe that the authors make the case on available literature for primary laparoscopic use when there are no contraindications. Despite recent meta-analysis showing similarities between laparoscopic and open arms of retrospectively analyzed and non-randomized data for morbidity and mortality, with an advantage of shorter hospital stay in the laparoscopic groups [1], there are still few available prospectively randomized clinical trials comparing the two main techniques. © 2010 Springer-Verlag Milan.