ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2013
Use of the gluteus maximus muscle as the neosphincter for restoration of anal function after abdominoperineal resection.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anal sphincter reconstruction for fecal incontinence: Techniques, outcomes, and future directions.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the RIFER procedure in treating high intersphincteric anal fistulas.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Current aspects and future prospects of total anorectal reconstruction--a critical and comprehensive review of the literature.International journal of colorectal disease · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur aim was to evaluate complications and long-term functional outcome in patients who had sphincter reconstruction using the gluteus maximus muscle as the neosphincter after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer treatment.
methodsSeven patients underwent reconstruction from 2000 to 2010. First, the sigmoid colon was brought down to the perineum as a perineal colostomy, with the procedure protected by a loop ileostomy. Reconstruction of the sphincter mechanism using the gluteus maximus took place 3 months later, and after another 8-12 weeks, the loop ileostomy was closed. We studied the functional outcome of these interventions with follow-up interviews of patients and objectively assessed anorectal function using manometry and the Cleveland Clinic Florida (Jorge-Wexner) fecal incontinence score.
resultsThe mean follow-up was 56 months (median 47; range 10-123 months). One patient had a perianal wound infection and another had fibrotic stricture in the colocutaneous anastomosis that required several digital dilatations. Anorectal manometry at 3-month follow-up showed resting pressures from 10 to 18 mm Hg and voluntary contraction pressures from 68 to 187 mm Hg. Four patients had excellent sphincter function (Jorge-Wexner scores ≤5).
conclusionsOur preliminary results show that sphincter reconstruction by means of gluteus maximus transposition can be effective in restoring gastrointestinal continuity and recovering fecal continence in patients who have undergone APR with permanent colostomy for rectal cancer. Furthermore, the reconstruction procedure can be performed 2-4 years after the APR.
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.