Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34008107›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2022

Objective recovery time with end-to-side versus side-to-side anastomosis after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

Min Hyun Kim, Sung Il Kang, Jung Rae Cho, Jeehye Lee, In Jun Yang, Jung Wook Suh, Heung-Kwon Oh, Duck-Woo Kim, Sung-Bum Kang

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Post-surgical diets in the ERAS protocol: D-ERAS scoping review.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. IsoperistalticWorld journal of clinical cases · 2023
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Min Hyun KimDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.
Sung Il KangDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.
Jung Rae ChoDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.
Jeehye LeeDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.
In Jun YangDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.
Jung Wook SuhDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.
Heung-Kwon OhDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.
Duck-Woo KimDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.
Sung-Bum KangDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea. kangsb@snubh.org.
Seoul National University Bundang Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite reports of the short-term benefits of end-to-side versus side-to-side anastomosis, we are aware of no prospective studies in which these methods were compared. We hypothesized the superiority of end-to-side over side-to-side anastomosis in terms of recovery after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer under an enhanced recovery program.

methodsFrom September 2016 to August 2019, 130 patients were randomly allocated to receive end-to-side or side-to-side anastomosis at a single tertiary hospital in Korea. The primary outcome was the cumulative recovery rate seven days after surgery, defined as the percentage of patients who met all four recovery criteria: diet tolerance, no analgesia, safe ambulation, and an afebrile status. Student's t test, the Mann-Whitney U test, the χ

resultsThe cumulative recovery rate at seven days did not differ between patients receiving end-to-side (92.3%, 60/65) or side-to-side anastomosis (92.3%, 60/65; P ≥ 0.999). The end-to-side and side-to-side groups had similar cumulative recovery rates at postoperative days 4, 5, and 6 (end-to-side vs. side-to-side: 41.5% vs 35.4%, P = 0.589; 73.8% vs 63.1%, P = 0.257; and 86.2% vs 81.5%, P = 0.634, respectively). None of the secondary endpoints differed for end-to-side vs. side-to-side anastomosis: the median length of postoperative hospitalization (5 [IQR 5-7] vs. 6 [IQR 5-7] days, respectively, P = 0.376), the 30-day complication rate (16.9% vs. 12.3%, respectively, P = 0.620), the enhanced recovery protocol failure rate (10.8% vs. 7.7%, respectively, P = 0.763), and the 30-day readmission rate (4.6% vs. 3.1%, respectively, P ≥ 0.999).

conclusionsEnd-to-side anastomosis was not superior to side-to-side anastomosis in terms of recovery criteria after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. These findings do not provide evidence for a functional advantage of end-to-side compared to side-to-side anastomosis.

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsLaparoscopyAnastomosis, SurgicalColectomyHumansPostoperative PeriodTreatment OutcomeEnhanced recovery protocolIleocolic anastomosisLaparoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID34008107
OpenAlexW3160726301

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.