Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28280982›Full record

Trial reportSurgery today2017

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic surgery with the double stapling technique for stage 0/I rectal carcinoma: a subgroup analysis of a multicenter, single-arm phase II trial.

Keitaro Tanaka, Junji Okuda, Seiichiro Yamamoto, Masaaki Ito, Kazuhiro Sakamoto, Yukihito Kokuba, Kenichi Yoshimura, Masahiko Watanabe

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgery today, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Diagnosis of Anastomotic Leak.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Keitaro TanakaDepartment of General and Gastroenterological Surgery, Osaka Medical College, Osaka, Japan.
Junji OkudaCancer Center, Osaka Medical College Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Seiichiro YamamotoDivision of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hiratsuka City Hospital, 19-1-1, Minamihara, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa, 254-0065, Japan. miyamamo@jcom.home.ne.jp.
Masaaki ItoColorectal Surgery Division, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan.
Kazuhiro SakamotoDepartment of Coloproctological Surgery, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan.
Yukihito KokubaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, St. Marianna University Yokohama West Hospital, Kanagawa, Japan.
Kenichi YoshimuraInnovative Clinical Research Center, Kanazawa University Hospital, Ishikawa, Japan.
Masahiko WatanabeDepartment of Surgery, Kitasato University Hospital, Kanagawa, Japan.
Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University · JPHiratsuka City Hospital · JPJuntendo University · JPKanazawa University Hospital · JPKitasato University Hospital · JPNational Cancer Center Hospital East · JPYokohama City Seibu Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to determine the risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal surgery.

methodsWe conducted a prospective trial involving 395 patients with stage 0/I rectal carcinoma who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection using a double stapling technique. Data concerning variables related to patient background, tumors and surgical factors were evaluated. The outcomes with respect to anastomotic leakage were recorded, and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify relevant risk factors.

resultsThe overall anastomotic leakage rate was 8.4%. A univariate analysis showed male gender (P = 0.006) and preoperative blood sugar level (P = 0.0034) to be significantly associated with anastomotic leakage. The variables of gender, preoperative blood sugar level, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (P = 0.15), transanal decompression tube (P = 0.06) and number of stapler cartridges used for rectal transection (P = 0.18) were selected for the multivariate analysis because of their P values being <0.2. The multivariate analysis identified male gender (odds ratio 4.12, P = 0.006) and the absence of a transanal decompression tube (odds ratio 3.11, P = 0.0484) as independent risk factors predicting anastomotic leakage.

conclusionsMale gender and the absence of a transanal decompression tube appeared to be independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Insertion of a transanal decompression tube may help prevent anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection, particularly in male patients.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresLaparoscopyAdultAgedAnastomotic LeakCarcinomaDecompression, SurgicalDrainageFemaleHumansIntubationMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm StagingPostoperative ComplicationsAnastomotic leakageLaparoscopic surgeryMulticenter studyRectal carcinomaTransanal decompression tube

Identifiers

PMID28280982
OpenAlexW2592926960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.