Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34044794›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2021

Readmission after rectal resection in the ERAS-era: is a loop ileostomy the Achilles heel?

Johanna Van Butsele, Gabriele Bislenghi, André D'Hoore, Albert M Wolthuis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Knowledge, attitudes, practices and associated factors regarding high output stoma of ileostomy among colorectal surgical nurses: a multicentre cross-sectional study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  11. Review
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

4 authors.

Johanna Van ButseleDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
Gabriele BislenghiDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
André D'HooreDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
Albert M WolthuisDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium. albert.wolthuis@uzleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1200-387X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRectal resection surgery is often followed by a loop ileostomy creation. Despite improvements in surgical technique and development of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, the readmission-rate after rectal resection is still estimated to be around 30%. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for readmission after rectal resection surgery. This study also investigated whether elderly patients (≥ 65 years old) dispose of a distinct patient profile and associated risk factors for readmission.

methodsThis is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from patients who consecutively underwent rectal resection for cancer within an ERAS protocol between 2011 and 2016. The primary study endpoint was 90-day readmission. Patients with and without readmission within 90 days were compared. Additional subgroup analysis was performed in patients ≥ 65 years old.

resultsA total of 344 patients were included, and 25% (n = 85) were readmitted. Main reasons for readmission were acute renal insufficiency (24%), small bowel obstruction (20%), anastomotic leakage (15%) and high output stoma (11%). In multivariate logistic regression, elevated initial creatinine level (cut-off values: 0.67-1.17 mg/dl) (OR 1.95, p = 0.041) and neoadjuvant radiotherapy (OR 2.63, p = 0.031) were significantly associated with readmission. For ileostomy related problems, elevated initial creatinine level (OR 2.76, p = 0.021) was identified to be significant.

conclusionRecovery after rectal resection within an ERAS protocol is hampered by the presence of a loop ileostomy. ERAS protocols should include stoma education and high output stoma prevention.

Indexed as

Enhanced Recovery After SurgeryRectal NeoplasmsAgedAnastomosis, SurgicalHumansIleostomyPatient ReadmissionPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesERASIleostomyReadmissionRectal resectionRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID34044794
PMCPMC8161575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.