Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32705343›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2020

Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy as temporary deviation after anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Dimitrios Prassas, Vasileios Vossos, Alexander Rehders, Wolfram Trudo Knoefel, Andreas Krieg

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dimitrios PrassasDepartment of Surgery, Heinrich-Heine-University and University Hospital Duesseldorf, (A) Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Vasileios VossosDepartment of Surgery, Heinrich-Heine-University and University Hospital Duesseldorf, (A) Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Alexander RehdersDepartment of Surgery, Heinrich-Heine-University and University Hospital Duesseldorf, (A) Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Wolfram Trudo KnoefelDepartment of Surgery, Heinrich-Heine-University and University Hospital Duesseldorf, (A) Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany. knoefel@uni-duesseldorf.de.
Andreas KriegDepartment of Surgery, Heinrich-Heine-University and University Hospital Duesseldorf, (A) Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEDüsseldorf University Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeConstruction of a temporary stoma is a common adjunct to low anterior resection for rectal cancer and can be accomplished either with loop ileostomy (LI) or loop colostomy (LC) with the question of the most appropriate one still remaining controversial. The aim of this study is to compare stoma-related morbidity between the two groups.

methodsA retrospective review was conducted including 148 consecutive patients (LI: 55/LC: 93) who underwent anterior resection for rectal cancer between January 2004 and December 2018 in our department. Time interval between low anterior resection and stoma reversal was similar for both groups. Comparison between the two groups was made regarding stoma-related morbidity after stoma construction and after stoma reversal, respectively.

resultsA total number of 17 patients suffered from complications after the construction of a protective LI compared with 25 patients after the construction of a LC (LI vs LC: 17/55 (30.1%) vs 25/93 (26.9%); p = 0.59). The most common morbidity noted in both groups before stoma closure was parastomal hernia, with the difference being statistically not significant (LI vs LC: 11/55 (20%) vs 21/93 (22.6%); p = 0.84). However, patients with LI suffered from significantly more peristomal skin irritations compared with the patients with LC (LI vs LC: 5/55 (9.1%) vs 1/93 (1.1%); p = 0.027). Overall morbidity rate after stoma closure was found to be comparable in both groups (LI vs LC: 7/37 (18.9%) vs 6/64 (9.4%); p = 0.16). The most common complication after stoma reversal was wound infection (LI vs LC: 5/37 (13.5%) vs 5/64 (7.8%); p = 0.49).

conclusionWith the exception of a higher rate of skin irritation after LI construction, all other postoperative outcomes were found to be comparable in both study groups. Further randomized clinical trials are required to verify these findings. The study was registered in the German Registry for Clinical Trials (DRKS00020766, date of registration: 11.02.2020).

Indexed as

Rectal NeoplasmsSurgical StomasColostomyHumansIleostomyPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesDiversion stomaLoop colostomyLoop ileostomyProtective ostomy

Identifiers

PMID32705343
OpenAlexW3044919545

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.