ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Extraperitoneal colostomy after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection using a cannula for tunnel creation through a trocar port.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extraperitoneal colostomy reduces parastomal hernia after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection: a propensity score-matched study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing extraperitoneal and transperitoneal routes of colostomy-related complications.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Risk factors for parastomal hernia following abdominoperineal resection.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtraperitoneal colostomy (EPC) after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) remains a challenge for surgeons. This study aims to summarize our laparoscopic EPC method and assess its effects versus a transperitoneal colostomy (TPC) for patients with rectal tumors.
methodsA total of 133 patients with rectal cancer treated with laparoscopic APR between May 2009 and May 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical data, including demographics, comorbidities, tumor stage, colostomy duration, and complications were compared between the EPC group and the TPC group.
resultsThe EPC group included 83 patients whose extraperitoneal tunnels were created using a cannula through a trocar port, and the TPC group included 50 patients whose stomata were formed traditionally. There were no differences in colostomy time [(23.1 ± 6) min vs. (21.4 ± 4) min, P = 0.078], number of parastomal dermatitis patients (5 vs. 2, P = 0.916), or number of stomal stenoses (1 vs. 1, P = 0.715) between the EPC and TPC groups. No cases of parastomal hernia developed in the EPC group, whereas 4 patients were diagnosed with a parastomal hernia; the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.036).
conclusionsLaparoscopic EPC have a lower incidence of parastomal hernia than TPC. It is easy and inexpensive to create an extraperitoneal tunnel using a cannula through a trocar port.
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.