Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32538129›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2020

Should the rectal defect be sutured following TEMS/TAMIS carried out for neoplastic rectal lesions? A meta-analysis.

K Khan, I A Hunter, T Manzoor

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Assessment and Techniques for Endoscopic Closure.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

K KhanCastle Hill Hospital, Hull University Teaching Hospitals, East Yorkshire, UK.
I A HunterCastle Hill Hospital, Hull University Teaching Hospitals, East Yorkshire, UK.
T ManzoorCastle Hill Hospital, Hull University Teaching Hospitals, East Yorkshire, UK.
Castle Hill Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionManagement of the rectal defect following transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS) or minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) carried out for excision of neoplasm in the lower rectum is controversial. We aimed to extract evidence by carrying out a meta-analysis to compare the peri- and postoperative outcomes following rectal neoplasm excision carried out by TEMS and/or TAMIS, whereby the defect is either sutured or left open.

methodsA literature search of Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. Full-text comparative studies published until November 2019, in English and of adult patients, whereby TEMS or TAMIS was undertaken for rectal neoplasms were included. The main outcome measures were postoperative bleeding, infection, operative time and hospital stay.

findingsThree studies (one randomised controlled trial and two comparative case series) yielded 555 cases (283 in the sutured group and 272 in the open group). The incidence of postoperative bleeding was higher and statistically significant (

conclusionSuturing the rectal defect following excision of rectal neoplasm by TEMS/TAMIS reduces the incidence of postoperative bleeding in comparison to leaving the defect open. However, suturing makes the procedure slightly longer but there was no statistical difference between both groups when postoperative infection and length of hospital stay were compared.

Indexed as

Suture TechniquesHumansRectal NeoplasmsRectumSuturesTransanal Endoscopic MicrosurgeryRectal neoplasmTAMISTEMSTransanal endoscopic microsurgeryTransanal minimally invasive surgery

Identifiers

PMID32538129
PMCPMC7591598
OpenAlexW3035651104

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.