ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021
Comparative study between ghost ileostomy and defunctioning ileostomy in terms of morbidity and cost-effectiveness in low anterior resection for rectal cancer.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. 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 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Ghost Ileostomy Versus Loop Ileostomy Following Oncologic Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Surgical innovation · 2023Pooled it
- Early versus delayed defunctioning ileostomy closure after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of safety and functional outcomes.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Pooled it
- 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
- Ghost Stoma Solving the Dilemma of Diversion After Anterior Resection: Surgical Technique Description and Experience from a Single Centre.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Short-Term Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Virtual/Ghost Ileostomy or Defunctioning Ileostomy after Anterior Resection of the Rectum: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Ostomy closure rate during COVID-19 pandemic: an Italian multicentre observational study.Updates in surgery · 2022Observational
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare ghost ileostomy (GI) and defunctioning ileostomy (DI) in patients who underwent low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity, rehospitalization rates, and total costs.
methodsPatients with an anastomosis level between 5 and 10 cm from the anal verge after LAR were analyzed retrospectively. Clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, postoperative morbidity, rehospitalization rates, and total costs were compared.
resultsA total of 123 patients were enrolled as follows: 42 patients in the GI group and 81 patients in the DI group. Anastomotic leakage (AL) was identified in three patients who underwent GI, and in all of them, GI was easily converted to DI. There were 96.3% of the patients with DI rehospitalized at least one time because of surgery-related and/or stoma-related complications or stoma closure. When we did not take into account the patients who were rehospitalized for stoma closure, the rates of rehospitalization were 4.7% and 22.2% in the GI and DI groups, respectively (P= 0.01). The mean total costs calculated by removing additional surgical procedures and adding all of the rehospitalization costs were 25,767 USD and 41,875 USD in the GI and DI groups, respectively (P= 0.0001).
conclusionGI may be a safe and cost-effective method in patients who underwent LAR with low or medium risk factors for AL. It is possible to avoid unnecessary ileostomy and reduce unwanted outcomes due to it, such as postoperative complications, rehospitalizations, and increased total costs by performing GI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33537875What 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.