Background: Laparoscopic rectopexy is an established treatment for complete rectal prolapse. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic posterior suture rectopexy (PSR) and anterior mesh rectopexy (AMR).Methods: A total of 30 patients with complete rectal prolapse were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo either PSR (n=16) or AMR (n=14). Demographic data, clinical history, intra-operative findings, hospital stay, post-operative bowel movements, and complications were recorded and analyzed.Results: The mean age was 50.44±17.28 years in the PSR group and 56.44±12.50 years in the AMR group (p>0.05). The mean intra-operative blood loss was 23.44±3.9 ml in the PSR group and 20.71±3.3 ml in the AMR group (p=0.053). The mean duration of surgery was 85.75±7.5 min in the PSR group and 92.0±9.9 min in the AMR group (p=0.062). The mean hospital stay was 3.0±0.0 days in the PSR group and 4.0±0.0 days in the AMR group. In the PSR group, 62.5% of patients had their first bowel movement on postoperative day 1, compared to 21.4% in the AMR group (p=0.059). There were no cases of new-onset constipation in either group. One patient (7.1%) in the AMR group had recurrence, and one patient (7.1%) had retrograde ejaculation (p=0.467).Conclusion: PSR and AMR are safe and effective techniques for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse, with comparable short-term outcomes. The PSR group showed a trend towards earlier return of bowel function. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are needed to validate these findings.