ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2018
The fate of preserved sphincter in rectal cancer patients.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Predictors for temporary stomas non-closure among non-metastatic rectal cancer patients undergoing curative resection: a retrospective analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Sex Disparities in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An In-Depth Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes.The world journal of men's health · 2024Review
- The impact of postoperative complications severity on stoma reversal following sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Article
- Permanent stoma after sphincter preservation for rectal cancer. A situation that occurs more often than you might think.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Transanal total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a case-matched study comparing TaTME versus standard laparoscopic TME.Cancer management and research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSphincter-saving surgery is widely accepted operative modality to treat rectal cancer. It often requires temporary diverting stoma to avoid the complications of anastomotic failure. This study investigates the cumulative failure rate in sphincter preservation for rectal cancer and the risk factors associated with the permanent stoma.
methodsA retrospective study on 358 patients diagnosed with primary rectal cancer from 2009 to 2013 was conducted at a single institute. Three hundred and thirty-one out of 358 patients with rectal cancer located within 12 cm from the anal verge, who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery, were included in this study. The cumulative rate for permanent stoma was calculated. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed, comparing the patients with stoma to the ones without.
resultsTemporary diverting stoma was created in 223 (82%) patients. After median follow-up of 42 months, 18 patients (6.6%) persistently used temporary stoma or required re-creation of stoma. Univariate analysis revealed that BMI, tumor location below 4 cm from the anal verge, coloanal anastomosis, anastomotic leakage, and local recurrence were significantly associated with persistent use or re-formation of stoma. Multivariate analysis showed that anastomotic leakage (OR 50.3; 95% CI, 10.1-250.1; p < 0.0001) and local recurrence (OR 11.3; 95% CI, 1.61-78.5; p = 0.015) were the independent risk factors.
conclusionPatients with anastomotic leakage and local recurrence are at high risk for permanent stoma. Not only should patients be fully informed of possible failure in sphincter preservation preoperatively, but also patient-oriented decision should be made on patient-tailored surgical plan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29532208What 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.