Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30867662›Full record

ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2019

The Application of Extraperitoneal Ostomy Combined with Pelvic Peritoneal Reconstruction in Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer.

Sen Wang, Qingyang Meng, Jun Gao, Yuqin Huang, Jie Wang, Yang Chong, Youquan Shi, Huaicheng Zhou, Wei Wang, Dong Tang and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 99% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sen WangThe First Clinical Medical College of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, China.
Qingyang MengDepartment of General Surgery, General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Northern Jiangsu Province Hospital, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu 225000, China.
Jun GaoDepartment of General Surgery, General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Northern Jiangsu Province Hospital, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu 225000, China.
Yuqin HuangDalian Medical University, Dalian, Liaoning 116044, China.
Jie WangDalian Medical University, Dalian, Liaoning 116044, China.
Yang ChongDepartment of General Surgery, General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Northern Jiangsu Province Hospital, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu 225000, China.
Youquan ShiDepartment of General Surgery, General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Northern Jiangsu Province Hospital, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu 225000, China.
Huaicheng ZhouDepartment of General Surgery, General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Northern Jiangsu Province Hospital, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu 225000, China.
Wei WangDepartment of General Surgery, General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Northern Jiangsu Province Hospital, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu 225000, China.
Dong TangDepartment of General Surgery, General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Northern Jiangsu Province Hospital, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu 225000, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2057-2968
Daorong WangDepartment of General Surgery, General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Northern Jiangsu Province Hospital, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu 225000, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1642-0889
Yangzhou University · CNDalian Medical University · CNNanjing Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to the technical difficulty, it is not common to close the pelvic peritoneum in laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) in China, which increases the risk of related complications. Permanent sigmoid colostomy is performed through the transperitoneal route conventionally in LAPR. This leads to the high occurrence of parastomal hernias and bowel obstructions. To prevent the complications and reduce surgical costs of LAPR, we performed some modifications for it.

methods38 patients diagnosed with low rectal cancer during July 2014 to July 2016 received LAPR with our modifications. First, the mobilization of the rectum and lymphadenectomy were identical to the classical routine method. Second, two sutures were performed on the pelvic peritoneum with the first to reduce the tension, followed by the second continuous suture to close the pelvic floor. Third, a tunnel was made between the parietal peritoneum and abdominal wall for the end sigmoid to pass through to finish the colostomy.

resultsLAPR was performed on totally 38 patients successfully with no case transferring to open surgery. The follow-up period was from 1 month to 1 year. The mean operative time was 142.2 ± 16.5 min ranging from 100 min to 175 min. The mean hospital stay was 12.0 ± 1.5 days. No case underwent the reconstruction of stoma. There was not a single complication of LAPR with these two techniques that occurred to all 38 patients.

conclusionWe consider LAPR with our two techniques feasible and safe, which can be accepted quickly to improve the life quality of patients. Therefore, we suggest our procedures as the first choice during LAPR surgery. This trial is registered with trial registration number 2014028.

Identifiers

PMID30867662
PMCPMC6379842
OpenAlexW2912776975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.