Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34057809›Full record

ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2021

The importance of rectal contrast in CT assessment to detect anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery.

Carla Christine Maria Marres, Esmee W M Engelmann, Chistianne J Buskens, Hester Eline Haak, Willem A Bemelman, Anthony Willem Hendrik van de Ven

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The importance of rectal contrast in CT assessment to detect anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2021
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carla Christine Maria MarresDepartment of Surgery, Flevoziekenhuis, Almere, The Netherlands.
Esmee W M EngelmannDepartment of Surgery, Flevoziekenhuis, Almere, The Netherlands.
Chistianne J BuskensDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9425-8683
Hester Eline HaakDepartment of Surgery, Flevoziekenhuis, Almere, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7621-7172
Willem A BemelmanDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1037-9945
Anthony Willem Hendrik van de VenDepartment of Surgery, Flevoziekenhuis, Almere, The Netherlands.
Flevoziekenhuis · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimComputed tomography (CT) is currently the diagnostic tool most often used to detect anastomotic leakage (AL) after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the value of rectal contrast.

methodAll patients who underwent colorectal surgery with a primary anastomosis between 2009 and 2018 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients who underwent postoperative CT scanning in suspicion of AL were included. The clinical and radiological outcomes of patients with and without rectal contrast were compared.

resultsA total of 1183 patient records were reviewed; 225 patients underwent CT-abdomen in suspicion of AL. Of these patients, 175 (77.8%) received rectal contrast. Sensitivity and specificity in this group were 78% and 94%, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 0.78 and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.94. In the group without rectal contrast (n = 50), sensitivity was 47%, specificity 88%, PPV 0.66 and NPV 0.76. In patients who received rectal contrast, contrast reached the anastomosis in 81.7% compared with 26.0% in patients who were given only oral contrast (p < 0.001). The sensitivity increased to 93% in the group of patients with contrast at the anastomosis, the specificity to 97%, the PPV to 0.88 and the NPV to 0.98. No adverse events were observed after the use of rectal contrast.

conclusionThe use of rectal contrast led to a significant increase in the predictive value of CT scanning for AL, especially when it reached the anastomosis. This suggests that rectal contrast is a safe and useful adjunct to CT-abdomen in the detection of AL.

Indexed as

Colorectal SurgeryRectal NeoplasmsAnastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakHumansRectumTomography, X-Ray Computedlaparoscopyradiologysurgery

Identifiers

PMID34057809
PMCPMC8518052
OpenAlexW3165391651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.