Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25052128›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2015

Efficacy of transanal tube for prevention of anastomotic leakage following laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancers: a retrospective cohort study in a single institution.

Eiji Hidaka, Fumio Ishida, Shumpei Mukai, Kenta Nakahara, Daisuke Takayanagi, Chiyo Maeda, Yusuke Takehara, Jun-ichi Tanaka, Shin-ei Kudo

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

9 authors.

Eiji HidakaDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, 35-1 Chigasaki-chuo, Tsuzuki-ku, Yokohama, 224-8503, Japan, ehidaka@med.showa-u.ac.jp.
Fumio Ishida
Shumpei Mukai
Kenta Nakahara
Daisuke Takayanagi
Chiyo Maeda
Yusuke Takehara
Jun-ichi Tanaka
Shin-ei Kudo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnastomotic leakage is one of the most serious complications following laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancers. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether transanal tube placement can reduce anastomotic leakage following laparoscopic LAR.

methodsRetrospective assessment was performed on 205 patients with rectal cancers who underwent laparoscopic LAR. A transanal tube was placed after anastomosis in 96 patients (group A). Another 109 patients were operated on without a transanal tube (group B). Clinicopathological and operative variables, the frequencies of anastomotic leakage and re-operation after leakage were investigated.

resultsPatient age, gender, body mass index, tumor size, Dukes' stage, intra-operative blood loss, and the rate of left colic artery preservation were comparable between the two groups. Tumor location was lower and operative time was significantly longer in group A than group B (p < 0.001). Overall rate of leakage was 9.3 % (19/205). The frequency of leakage was 4.2 % (4/96) in group A and was 13.8 % (15/109) in group B. The rate of leakage was significantly lower in group A (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the re-operation rate for symptomatic anastomotic leakage was 0 % (0/4) in group A, while in contrast it was 73.3 % (10/15) in group B. The rate of re-operation was lower in group A than group B (p < 0.05) and all cases with symptomatic leakage in group A were cured by conservative treatment.

conclusionsTransanal tube placement was effective for prevention of anastomotic leakage following laparoscopic LAR and avoiding re-operation after symptomatic leakage.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyAdultAgedAnal CanalAnastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeRectal NeoplasmsRectumRetrospective StudiesSurgical Stapling

Identifiers

PMID25052128

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.