ArticlePediatric surgery international2010
Loss of intestine during stoma closure: an experimental model comparing laparoscopic and conventional techniques.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study compared laparoscopy-assisted stoma closure (Lap) with conventional closure (Co) to assess loss of intestine.
methodsIleostomies (loop L; single S) were performed 5 cm proximal to the ileocecal junction through a right lower quadrant incision in forty 11-week-old Lewis rats (L = 20, S = 20). Stoma closure was performed 60 days later using laparoscopy (Lap) or conventional closure (Co) in 10 rats each, to give 4 groups, Lap-L, Lap-S, Co-L, and Co-S. End-to-end anastomosis was performed through the stoma site in all rats. Bowel resected from the skin to the anastomosis was termed resected unusable bowel (RUB) and measured blindly. Laparotomy was performed 30 days later to assess the status of the anastomosis and complications.
resultsAverage RUB with Lap was significantly shorter; Lap-L (17.8 mm) versus Co-L (23.8 mm), P = 0.002, and Lap-S (10.6 mm) versus Co-S (13.8 mm), P = 0.001. During Co, accidental full-thickness injury to underlying bowel during stoma take-down occurred in 3 Co-L and 2 Co-S rats. All Lap rats were uncomplicated. Average times taken until end of stoma take-down were 6.1 min for Lap-L (3.2 min for trocar insertion, 2.8 min for stoma take-down), 5.6 min for Lap-S (2.8 and 2.7 min), 6.3 min for Co-L (from first incision to stoma take-down), and 5.1 min for Co-S (P = NS). At laparotomy there was no evidence of complications such as wound infection, incisional hernia or anastomotic stenosis in any rat.
conclusionsOur results suggest that laparoscopy-assisted stoma closure is safe and quick, and results in less loss of intestine during stoma closure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.