Clinical efficacy of integral theory–guided laparoscopic integral pelvic floor/ligament repair in the treatment of internal rectal prolapse in females

Table 1 Comparison of the general information between patients with internal rectal prolapse in groups A and B

		Group A (n = 63)	Group B (n = 67)	P value
Patient information	Age (yr)	50.46 ± 13.95	49.90 ± 14.25	0.820
	BMI (kg/m2)	24.70 ± 3.71	24.46 ± 3.24	0.700
Preoperative data	DIRP (cm)	3.41 ± 0.27	3.50 ± 0.33	0.093
	WCS (0-30)	8.41 ± 3.06	8.30 ± 3.20	0.853
	WIS (0-20)	8.75 ± 2.43	8.76 ± 2.28	0.962
	GIQLI (0-144)	100.90 ± 5.83	101.16 ± 6.13	0.796
	BM (number of times/d)	3.35 ± 1.15	3.49 ± 1.05	0.459
Intraoperative and postoperative data	Operating time (min)	40.35 ± 5.96	50.45 ± 6.52	< 0.001
	Intraoperative blood loss (mL)	4.63 ± 1.35	8.22 ± 3.67	< 0.001
	Time to first passage of feces/flatus (d)	2.22 ± 1.01	2.48 ± 0.98	0.144
	Length of hospital stay (d)	4.87 ± 1.20	5.58 ± 1.76	0.009
	Complications (Dindo > I) n (%)	7 (11.11%)	8 (11.94%)	0.882

BMI: Body mass index; DIRP: Degree of internal rectal prolapse; WCS: Wexner constipation scale; GIQLI: Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index; WIS: Wexner incontinence scale.