ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Diverting stoma with anterior resection for rectal cancer: does it reduce overall anastomotic leakage and leaks requiring laparotomy?
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A meta-analysis of the role of diverting ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Pooled it
- The impact of transanal tube design for preventing anastomotic leak in anterior resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- Patient selection and operative strategies for laparoscopic intersphincteric resection without diverting stoma.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Analysis of Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage After Laparoscopic Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer and Construction of a Nomogram Prediction Model.Cancer management and research · 2022Article
- Defunctioning Stomas Result in Significantly More Short-Term Complications Following Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer.World journal of surgery · 2018Article
- Defunctioning stoma- a prognosticator for leaks in low rectal restorative cancer resection: A retrospective analysis of stoma database.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2017Article
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
Anastomotic leakage (AL) after resection for rectal carcinoma accelerates morbidity and mortality rates, extends hospital stay, and increases treatment costs, particularly when requiring laparotomy. The role of a protective diverting stoma (DS) in avoiding leakage has repeatedly been discussed, but prospective randomized studies on this subject are rare and their results contradictory. The MEDLINE database was searched for studies of AL requiring laparotomy and of the associated rate of protective DSs in initial anterior resection (AR) to review these studies systematically. The collected data were used to determine the average rate of AL requiring laparotomy after rectal cancer surgery in the DS group compared with that in the non-DS group. A total of 930 abstracts were retrieved from MEDLINE; 15 articles on AR and 22 on low/ultralow AR (LAR) were included in the review and analysis. The overall rate of AL requiring laparotomy was 6.57% (813/12, 376) in the AR studies and 4.13% (157/3, 802) in the LAR studies. In the AR studies, the pooled AL rate in the DS group was higher than that in the non-DS group (12.30% vs. 9.16%, P < 0.001). However, the pooled rate of AL requiring laparotomy in the DS group was lower than that in the non-DS group (3.69% vs. 7.42%, P < 0.001). In the LAR studies, the pooled AL rate in the DS group was lower than that in the non-DS group (7.74% vs. 9.64%, P = 0.045). The pooled rate of AL requiring laparotomy in the DS group was also lower than that in the non-DS group (2.67% vs. 5.21%, P < 0.001). By contrast, the pooled rate of definitive stomas and mortality caused by AL did not have any statistical difference between the DS and non-DS groups in both AR studies (definitive stomas: 0% vs. 0.65%; mortality: 0.95% vs. 1.19%) and LAR studies (definitive stomas: 1.03% vs. 1.01%; mortality: 0.35% vs. 0.36%). Protective DSs significantly decrease the rate of AL in LAR. AL requiring surgical correction was significantly reduced in the DS group in both AR and LAR studies. Protective DSs did not affect the definitive stomas and mortality rate; this lack of an effect warrants further high-quality clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26550227PMC4612912What 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.