ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2015
Colovaginal anastomosis: A totally unacceptable surgical error.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Critical surgical errors by junior fellows and trainees in low rectal cancer surgery: How to overcome?(A cross-sectional study).Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe low anterior rectal resection and double stapling technique are well-established surgical procedures with well-known pitfalls, potential complications, and preventive measures. Colovaginal anastomosis is a surgical error which should not occur. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 39-year old woman underwent low anterior resection with double stapling technique, for rectal carcinoma in the City Hospital. On the fifth postoperative day she noticed passage of gas and two days later passage of feces from vagina. The surgeons who performed the operation explained to her that it is a normal condition for such modern procedure that is supervised by international educator engaged by the Government. The patient lived with this condition, passage of gas and feces from the vagina and nothing from anus for three months when her oncologist referred her for a second opinion at the University Clinic for Digestive Surgery. The digital examinations revealed a blind rectal stump, and feces in vagina; thus having the patient's history in mind, we assumed that the patient had a colovaginal anastomosis. Our assumption was confirmed by two succeeding radiological examinations. Initially, water soluble contrast enema was performed to assess the colon, when a clear-cut blind rectal stump was detected. Afterwards, the vaginography revealed a copious flow of contrast material from the vagina toward the sigmoid colon. After a few days, a restorative surgery was done. DISCUSSION: Most of the early postoperative complications are a result of surgical errors.
conclusionWe believe that there is no excuse for such a surgical error and postoperative follow-up.
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.