ArticleISRN surgery2014
Coloplasty Neorectum versus Straight Anastomosis in Low Rectal Cancers.
Article in ISRN surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the colonic J-pouch versus straight (end-to-end) anastomosis following low anterior resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Pooled it
- Functional outcomes and quality of life after intersphincteric resection with transverse coloplasty pouch anastomosis for ultralow rectal cancer: a prospective cohort study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- The transverse coloplasty pouch is technically easy and safe and improves functional outcomes after low rectal cancer resection-a single center experience with 397 patients.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Article
- Modified transverse coloplasty pouch: new reconstruction techniques after total mesorectal excision. Our experience.Il Giornale di chirurgiaArticle
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
Introduction. Patients with the diagnosis of carcinoma rectum after random allocation were assigned to 2 groups. One group was subjected to total mesorectal excision with coloplasty neorectum reconstruction and another group to total mesorectal excision with straight anastomosis. This randomization was done by odds and even method by the sister in charge of the ward to avoid bias in randomization. The study included 42 patients with diagnosis of carcinoma rectum from 4 to 12 centimeters from anal verge. Composite incontinence score, bladder function, and sexual function were considered as the main outcome measures. Results. All patients of transverse coloplasty group had mild or moderate composite incontinence score while 7 (36.8%) patients of straight anastomosis group had a severe score at 7th POD (P < 0.05). At 6 months, 100% patients in transverse coloplasty group had a nil score which was not achieved by any of the patients in the other group. An intragroup comparison showed an improvement in score with time in both groups more marked in transverse coloplasty group. Conclusion. Transverse coloplasty group showed a better QOL so far as anal incontinence is considered. However, no statistically significant difference was achieved when comparing bladder and sexual dysfunction between the two groups.
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.