ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2017
Type of incision does not predict abdominal wall outcome after emergency surgery for colonic anastomotic leakage.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors influencing harmonized health data collection, sharing and linkage in Denmark and Switzerland: A systematic review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Comment to: Rectus abdominis atrophy after ventral abdominal incisions: midline versus chevron by Vigneswaran et al.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 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
purposeMost literature on abdominal incision is based on patients undergoing elective surgery. In a cohort of patients with anastomotic leakage after colonic cancer resection, we analyzed the association between type of incision, fascial dehiscence, and incisional hernia.
methodsData were extracted from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database and merged with information from the Danish National Patient Register. All patients with anastomotic leakage after colonic resection in Denmark from 2001 until 2008 were included and surgical records on re-operations were retrieved. The primary outcome of the study was incisional hernia formation, and the secondary outcome was fascial dehiscence. Multivariable logistic, Cox, and competing risks regression analysis, as well as propensity score matching were used for confounder control.
resultsA total of 363 patients undergoing reoperation for anastomotic leakage were included with a median follow-up of 5.4 years. Incisional hernia occurred in 41 of 227 (15.3%) patients undergoing midline incision compared with 14 of 81 (14.7%) following transverse incision, P = 1.00. After adjusting for confounders, there was no association between the type of incision and incisional hernia (transverse incision hazard ratio 1.36, 0.68-2.72, P = 0.390) or fascial dehiscence (transverse incision odds ratio 1.66, 0.57-4.49, P = 0.331). This conclusion was confirmed after propensity score matching, P = 0.507.
conclusionsIn the current study, type of incision did not predict abdominal wall outcome after emergency surgery for colonic anastomotic leakage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28391448What 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.