Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23572218›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2013

Does use of a metallic colon stent as a bridge to surgery modify the pathology data in patients with colonic obstruction? A case-matched study.

Charles Sabbagh, Denis Chatelain, Nathalie Trouillet, François Mauvais, Sif Bendjaballah, François Browet, Jean-Marc Regimbeau

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Charles SabbaghDepartment of Digestive and Metabolic Surgery, Amiens University Medical Center, Amiens, France.
Denis Chatelain
Nathalie Trouillet
François Mauvais
Sif Bendjaballah
François Browet
Jean-Marc Regimbeau
Université de Picardie Jules Verne · FRCentre Hospitalier de Beauvais · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Amiens-Picardie · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn a recent propensity score study, we established that overall- and disease-free survival were worse after use of a colonic stent (CS) than after emergency surgery for colonic obstruction. The present study sought to explain the association between CS use and poor survival by analyzing pathological specimens.

methodsFrom January 1998 to December 2011, all patients with left obstructive colon cancer and having been operated on with curative intent were included in the study. The primary end point involved a comparison of pathological data from the CS- and the surgery-only groups in a case-matched analysis (with the groups matched for the T stage). In a series of secondary analyses, we studied a range of factors known to be associated with adverse outcomes (microscopic perforation, vascular embolism, perineural invasion, and lymph node invasion) in the study population as a whole (in order to evaluate stenting as an adverse factor) and in the CS group alone (in order to identify factors associated with a poor prognosis in this specific group of patients).

resultsA total of 84 patients were included in the study (50 in the CS group). Stenting was mentioned in only 70 % of the pathology lab reports (n = 35/50). Twenty-five patients in the CS group were matched with 25 patients of the surgery-only group. Tumor ulceration (p < 0.0001), peritumor ulceration (p < 0.0001), perineural invasion (p = 0.008), and lymph node invasion (p = 0.005) were significantly more frequent in the CS group. In a multivariate analysis of the CS group, T4 status and tumor size were significant risk factors for microscopic perforation, perineural invasion, and lymph node invasion.

conclusionThe CS- and surgery-only groups differed significantly in terms of ulceration at or near the tumor, perineural invasion, and lymph node invasion. Explanation of the adverse outcomes associated with CS use will probably require further investigation.

Indexed as

StentsAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkersCarcinomaCase-Control StudiesCell DifferentiationColectomyColonic NeoplasmsEmbolismEmergenciesFemaleHumansIntestinal ObstructionIntestinal PerforationLymphatic MetastasisBiomarkersMetals

Identifiers

PMID23572218
OpenAlexW1964311994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.