Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31123808›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2019

Omental flaps in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

Vanessa M Welten, Adam C Fields, Pamela Lu, Joel E Goldberg, Jennifer Irani, Ronald Bleday, Nelya Melnitchouk

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Management of Perineal Wounds Following Pelvic Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vanessa M WeltenDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. vwelten@partners.org.
Adam C FieldsDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Pamela LuDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Joel E GoldbergDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Jennifer IraniDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Ronald BledayDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Nelya MelnitchoukDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. nmelnitchouk@bwh.harvard.edu.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollowing abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer, perineal wound complications are common. Omental flap creation may allow for decreased morbidity. The aim of this study was to assess wound complications in rectal cancer patients undergoing APR with and without the addition of an omental flap.

methodsThe National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Proctectomy targeted database from 2016 to 2017 was used to identify all patients undergoing APR for rectal cancer. The primary outcomes were wound complications such as superficial site infection, deep wound infection, organ space infection, and wound dehiscence.

resultsThere were 3063 patients identified. One hundred seventy-three (5.6%) patients underwent APR with an omental flap repair while 2890 (94.4%) patients underwent APR without an omental flap repair. Patients in both groups were similar with regard to age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesia class, and neoadjuvant cancer treatment (all p > 0.05). Patients who underwent an omental flap repair were significantly more likely to have a postoperative organ space infection (10.4% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.04). There was no significant difference in rates of superficial site infection, deep wound infection, wound dehiscence, or reoperation between the two patient groups. In multivariable analysis, omental flap creation was independently associated with organ space infection (OR 1.72, 95%CI 1.02-2.90, p = 0.04).

conclusionsThis is the largest study to evaluate omental flap use in rectal cancer patients undergoing APR. Omental flaps are independently associated with organ space infection.

Indexed as

AbdomenAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisOmentumPerineumRectal NeoplasmsRisk FactorsSurgical FlapsSurgical Wound DehiscenceSurgical Wound InfectionTreatment OutcomeOmental flapPostoperative infectionRectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID31123808
OpenAlexW2945476072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.