ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: high price of protection.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04573075 (Is a Ghost Ileostomy a Safe Alternative to a Protective Loop Ileostomy for Patients After Colorectal Resections ?), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 6 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.
Is a Ghost Ileostomy a Safe Alternative to a Protective Loop Ileostomy for Patients After Colorectal Resections ?
Who cites it
52 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post-surgical morbidity in early versus late closure of defunctioning ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- The efficacy of ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Pooled 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
- Incidence and predictors of postoperative ileus after loop ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Pooled it
- The application of defunctioning stomas after low anterior resection of rectal cancer.Surgery today · 2019Pooled it
- Prevention of incisional hernia in ileostomy reversal. 5-year follow-up prospective randomized controlled trial.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Trial
- Clinical application of the B-type sutured ileostomy in robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Trial
- Cost analysis in a randomized trial of early closure of a temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer (EASY trial).Surgical endoscopy · 2020Trial
- Quality of life in a randomized trial of early closure of temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer (EASY trial).The British journal of surgery · 2018Trial
- Clinical Safety and Effectiveness of COLO-BT™, an Intraluminal Fecal Diverting Device, as an Alternative to Defunctioning Ileostomy After Proctectomy.Surgical innovation · 2026Article
- The value of remote continuous nursing based on WeChat short videos for patients with prophylactic ileostomy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Double-tube end ileostomy: an alternative to classical defunctioning stoma in rectal surgery.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Prophylactic ileostomy vs. nonprophylactic ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer (PILLAR): a prospective, multicenter, cohort study in china.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Efficacy of reinforcing sutures in preventing anastomotic leakage after surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and metaanalysis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Analysis of decision-making factors for defunctioning ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery and their impact on perioperative recovery: a retrospective study of 1082 patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Risk assessment of rectal anastomotic leakage (RAREAL) after DIXON in non-emergency patients with rectal cancer.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Fluorescent ICG angiography in laparoscopic rectal resection - a randomized controlled trial. Preliminary report.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023Article
- Impact of a diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Application and evaluation of transitory protective stoma in ovarian cancer surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnastomotic leakage presents the most feared complication after low anterior resection (LAR). A proximal diversion of the gastrointestinal tract is recommended to avoid septic complications of anastomotic leakage. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the benefits and risks of diverting ileostomy (DI) created during laparoscopic LAR because of low rectal cancer.
methodsThis was a retrospective clinical cohort study conducted to assess outcomes of laparoscopic LAR with/without DI in a single institution within a 6-year period.
resultsIn total, 151 patients were enrolled in the study (73 patients without DI, 78 patients with DI). There were no significant differences between both groups regarding demographic and clinical features. Overall 30-day morbidity rates were significantly lower in patients without DI (23.3 vs. 42.3 %, P = 0.013). Symptomatic anastomotic leakage occurred more frequently in patients without DI (9.6 vs. 2.5 %, P = 0.090); surgical intervention was needed in 6.8 % of patients without DI. Post-operative hospital stay was significantly longer in the group of patients with DI (11.3 ± 8.5 vs. 8.1 ± 6.9 days, P = 0.013). Stoma-related complications occurred in 42 of 78 (53.8 %) patients with DI; some patients had more than one complication. Acute surgery was needed in 9 patients (11.5 %) because of DI-related complications. Small bowel obstruction due to DI semi-rotation around its longitudinal axis was seen in 3 patients (3.8 %) and presents a distinct complication of DI laparoscopic construction. The mean interval between LAR and DI reversal was more than 8 months; only 19.2 % of patients were reversed without delay (≤4 months). Morbidity after DI reversal was 16.6 %; re-laparotomy was necessary in 2.5 % of patients.
conclusionsThe present study indicates that DI protects low rectal anastomosis from septic complications at a cost of many stoma-related complications, substantial risk of acute surgery necessity and long stoma periods coupled with decreased quality of life.
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.