ArticleJournal of the anus, rectum and colon2017
Laparoscopic versus Open stoma creation: A retrospective analysis.
Article in Journal of the anus, rectum and colon, 2017. 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.
- Surgical Outcomes in Laparoscopic vs Open Diverting Colostomy for Radiation-Related Rectovaginal Fistula.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Laparoscopically assisted versus open colostomy for anorectal malformations: a comparison of postoperative outcomes.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Article
- Stoma related complications: A registry study based on a prospective registration system.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Risk factors for stoma prolapse after laparoscopic loop colostomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for loop colostomy: a propensity-score-matched analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare open stoma (OS) creation with laparoscopic stoma (LS) creation considering the operation time, blood loss, time of oral intake, and complications. We also compared multiport LS and single-incision laparoscopic stoma (SILS) creation.
methodsWe reviewed the demographic data, diagnosis, indications, operation time, blood loss, time of oral intake, operative procedure, and complications of 50 patients who underwent stoma creation between April 2014 and April 2016.
resultsThe mean blood loss was significantly lower in the LS group (7.85±18.4 ml) than in the OS group (38.1±73.2 ml;
conclusionsLS is comparable with OS in terms of operation time and time of oral intake and may cause lesser blood loss. Considering its advantages, LS is a useful approach for patients requiring biopsies or intra-abdominal inspection. SILS is a minimally invasive technique, suitable for patients in whom the stoma site is preoperatively decided.
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.