ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Parastomal and incisional hernia following laparoscopic/open abdominoperineal resection: is there a real difference?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 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
- An evidence map and synthesis review with meta-analysis on the risk of incisional hernia in colorectal surgery with standard closure.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of different modalities for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia: a systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Pooled it
- Incidence of parastomal hernia after open versus minimally invasive surgery: a comparative systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- The risk factors for incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a multicenter retrospective study at Yokohama Clinical Oncology Group.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Observational
- [Principles and parallels of prevention and repair of parastomal hernia with meshes].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2020Review
- Article
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
backgroundThe aim of the present study was to explore incidence and severity of parastomal hernia (PSH) formation during the first 2 years after open/laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR).
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single institution. All patients who underwent laparoscopic/open APR for low rectal cancer within a 10-year study period were assessed for study eligibility.
resultsIn total, 148 patients were included in the study (97 patients after laparoscopic APR; 51 patients after open APR). There were no statistically significant differences between study subgroups regarding demographic and clinical features. The incidence of PSH detected by physical examination was significantly higher in patients after laparoscopic APR 1 year after the surgery (50.5% vs. 19.6%, p < 0.001) and 2 years after the surgery (57.7% vs. 29.4%, p = 0.001). The incidence of radiologically detected PSH was significantly higher in laparoscopically operated patients after 1 year (58.7% vs. 35.3%, p = 0.007) and after 2 years (61.8% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.004). The mean diameter of PSH was similar in both study subgroups. The incidence of incisional hernia was significantly higher in patients who underwent open APR after 1 year (25.5% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.002) and after 2 years (31.3% vs. 7.2%, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe risk of PSH development after laparoscopic APR appears to be significantly higher in comparison with patients undergoing open APR. Higher incidence of PSH should be considered a potential disadvantage of minimally invasive approach to patients with low rectal cancer.
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.