ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2015
Low anterior resection combined with a covering stoma in the treatment of rectal cancer reduces the risk of permanent anastomotic failure.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical impact of diverting ileostomy and high-output stoma on adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Benefits and risks of diverting stoma creation during rectal cancer surgery.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Article
- Reinforcement of Colonic Anastomosis with Improved Ultrafine Nanofibrous Patch: Experiment on Pig.Biomedicines · 2021Article
- Oncological and anorectal functional outcomes of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection in lower rectal cancer, particularly the extent of sphincter resection and sphincter saving.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- The potential effect of biological sealants on colorectal anastomosis healing in experimental research involving severe diabetes.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe adoption of the total mesorectum excision technique and circular stapler devices has enabled the performance of ultralow colorectal anastomosis in rectal cancer surgery. However, rupture of the anastomosis still usually leads to a permanent stoma. The aim of this study was to analyze the cumulative failure rate and risk factors associated with reversal of colorectal or coloanal anastomosis after sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer, using standardized surgical regimen with the routine use of covering stoma. Our secondary interest was the feasibilities of redo surgery after failure.
methodsThis was a retrospective study with 579 consecutive rectal cancer patients operated on at Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland during 2005-2011. Data were collected from patient records. After exclusions, 273 consecutive patients treated with a low anterior resection with a protective stoma were included.
resultsIn total, 23 out of 271 (8.5 %) of the colorectal/coloanal anastomoses were converted to a permanent stoma. In five patients (1.8 %), the covering stoma was not closed. The permanent stoma rate was thus 28 out of 271 (10.3 %). The risk factors associated with failure were the tumor distance from the anal verge (p = 0.03), coloanal anastomosis (p = 0.003), early anastomotic complication (p < 0.001), anastomotic fistula (p < 0.001), anal incontinence (p = 0.05), and local recurrence (p < 0.001).
conclusionsOur standardized surgical regimen with a covering stoma in low anterior resection for rectal cancer resulted in a minor anastomosis failure rate and a low risk of permanent stoma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26111635What 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.