ArticleOncotarget2017
Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer with biological mesh for pelvic floor reconstruction.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of biological mesh reconstruction versus primary perineal closure after abdominoperineal excision of rectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Pooled it
- Perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal excision or extralevator abdominoperineal excision: a systematic review of the literature.Techniques in coloproctology · 2017Pooled it
- A low incidence of perineal hernia when using a biological mesh after extralevator abdominoperineal excision with or without pelvic exenteration or distal sacral resection in locally advanced rectal cancer patients.Techniques in coloproctology · 2020Article
- Article
- Application of modified primary closure of the pelvic floor in laparoscopic extralevator abdominal perineal excision for low rectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
goalTo share our experience of extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer, focusing on perineal repair with biological mesh.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed medical records of all patients with low rectal cancer who underwent the ELAPE procedure using biological mesh for perineal repair at the Gastrointestinal Surgery of Nanjing Drum Power Hospital between January 2013 and September 2015. All patients were closely followed up to now.
resultsA total of 17 patients underwent ELAPE for low rectal cancer was screened. Of these, 15 patients had primary rectal cancer, 1 had local recurrent rectal cancer, and 1 had malignant melanoma. All patients underwent ELAPE successfully without intestinal perforation and got stage I healing in perineum wound without incision infection, dehiscence, cystocele perinealis, urethral dysfunction or intestinal obstruction. Perineum wound hematoma developed in just one patient and had successful percutaneous drainage in one week. During the follow-up, there was no recurrence, perineal hernia, sexual dysfunction, urinary retention, or bowel obstruction. Two patients described slight pain in the sacrococcygeal region without special handling.
conclusionELAPE is applicable to low rectal cancer. Biological mesh reconstruction of perineal defect seems to be safe and effective, with high patient compliance.
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.