ArticleBMJ open2020
Ghost ileostomy versus conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer (DRKS00013997): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Virtual Ileostomy Versus Diverting Ileostomy in Patients Underwent Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: a Propensity-matched Study
Virtual Ileostomy Versus Conventional Loop Ileostomy in Patients Undergoing Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Study
Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Virtual Ileostomy Versus Diverting Ileostomy in Patients Undergoing Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: a Multicentre, Prospective, Open-label, Blinded Endpoint, PROBE Study
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ghost-ileostomy versus conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer: results of a randomised controlled multicentre pilot trial (DRKS00013997).Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Trial
- Comparing the safety and efficacy of virtual ileostomy versus diverting ileostomy in patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a propensity-matched study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Prognostic factors for complications after loop ileostomy reversal.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Article
- Comparative study between ghost ileostomy and defunctioning ileostomy in terms of morbidity and cost-effectiveness in low anterior resection for rectal cancer.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Article
- Ghost Ileostomy: Safe and Cost-effective Alternative to Ileostomy After Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnastomotic leakage is the most important complication in colorectal surgery occurring in up to 20% after low anterior rectal resection. Therefore, a diverting ileostomy is usually created during low anterior resection to protect the anastomosis or rather to diminish the consequences in case of anastomotic leakage. The so-called virtual or ghost ileostomy is a pre-stage ostomy that can be easily exteriorised, if anastomotic leakage is suspected, in order to avoid the severe consequences of anastomotic leakage. On the other hand, an actual ileostomy can be avoided in patients, who do not develop anastomotic leakage. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The GHOST trial is a randomised controlled pilot trial comparing ghost ileostomy with conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. After screening for eligibility and obtaining informed consent, a total of 60 adult patients are included in the trial. Patients are intraoperatively randomised to the trial groups in a 1:1 ratio after assuring that none of the intraoperative exclusion criteria are present. The main outcome parameter is the comprehensive complication index as a measure of safety. Further outcomes include specific complications, stoma-related complications, complications of ileostomy closure, frequency of transformation of ghost ileostomy into conventional ileostomy, frequency of terminal ostomy creation, proportion of patients with an ostomy at 6 months after index surgery, anorectal function (Wexner score) and quality of life assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and CR29 questionnaires. Follow-up for each individual patient will be 6 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The GHOST trial has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Heidelberg University (reference number S-694/2017). If the intervention proves to be safe, loop ileostomy could be spared in a large proportion of patients, thus also avoiding stoma-related complications and a second operation (ileostomy closure) with its inherent complications in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00013997); Universal Trial Number: U1111-1208-9742.
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.