ArticleWorld journal of surgery2017
Safety and Feasibility of Umbilical Diverting Loop Ileostomy for Patients with Rectal Tumor.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Which site is better for prophylactic ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery? By the specimen extraction site or new site: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Trial
- Comparison of specimen extraction site and another site for protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective comparative study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Defunctioning Ileostomy to Prevent the Anastomotic Leakage in Colorectal Surgery. The State of the Art of the Different Available Types.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Short-term and Medium-term Outcomes of Low Midline and Low Transverse Incisions in Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Surgery.Annals of coloproctology · 2020Article
- Surgical specimen extractionWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2018Observational
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
backgroundFashioning an ileostomy in the umbilicus and combining the trauma from extraction of colorectum with that from ileostomy should be less invasive and lead to improved cosmetic outcomes. However, there are only a few reports regarding umbilical ileostomy.
methodsWe retrospectively collected data for 121 consecutive patients with rectal tumor who underwent elective laparoscopic rectal resection with diverting loop ileostomy between 2010 and 2015 at Osaka University Hospital, Japan. The safety and feasibility of umbilical diverting loop ileostomy and its influence on stoma care were investigated.
resultsA total of 83 patients were included in this study; of these, 30 underwent umbilical diverting loop ileostomy and 53 underwent conventional diverting loop ileostomy, which was created in the right lower quadrant of the abdomen. The umbilical and conventional groups showed similar rates of postoperative and stoma-related complications (26.7 vs. 32.1%, p = 0.804 and 3.3 vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000, respectively). Level of parastomal dermatitis was evaluated by DET score at three time points (stoma self-management establishment, first outpatient review post-discharge, and just before stoma closure). DET scores at any time points did not differ significantly between the two groups.
conclusionsUmbilical diverting loop ileostomy is comparable to conventional ileostomy with regard to safety and feasibility. Our methods for umbilical ileostomy using the umbilical skin flap were less invasive and did not have a negative impact on stoma care and parastomal dermatitis. Umbilical ileostomy may be a promising alternative to conventional ileostomy in selected cases.
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.