Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34263363›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2021

A comparative multicentre study evaluating gluteal turnover flap for wound closure after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

S Sharabiany, J J W van Dam, S Sparenberg, R D Blok, B Singh, S Chaudhri, F Runau, A A W van Geloven, A W H van de Ven, O Lapid and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

S Sharabiany *Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Post-box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2222-2037
J J W van Dam *Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Post-box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S SparenbergDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Post-box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R D BlokDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Post-box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
B SinghDepartment of Surgery, Leicester University Hospital, Leicester, UK.
S ChaudhriDepartment of Surgery, Leicester University Hospital, Leicester, UK.
F RunauDepartment of Surgery, Leicester University Hospital, Leicester, UK.
A A W van GelovenDepartment of Surgery, Tergooi Hospital, Hilversum, The Netherlands.
A W H van de VenDepartment of Surgery, Flevo Hospital, Almere, The Netherlands.
O LapidDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Post-box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R HompesDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Post-box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
P J TanisDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Post-box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
G D MustersDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Post-box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. g.d.musters@amsterdamumc.nl.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLLeicester General Hospital · GBDe Kinderkliniek · NLGGD Amsterdam · NLTergooi · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare perineal wound healing between gluteal turnover flap and primary closure in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer.

methodsPatients who underwent APR for primary or recurrent rectal cancer with gluteal turnover flap in two university hospitals (2016-2021) were compared to a multicentre cohort of primary closure (2000-2017). The primary endpoint was uncomplicated perineal wound healing within 30 days. Secondary endpoints were long-term wound healing, related re-interventions, and perineal herniation. The perineal hernia rate was assessed using Kaplan Meier analysis.

resultsTwenty-five patients had a gluteal turnover flap and 194 had primary closure. The uncomplicated perineal wound-healing rate within 30 days was 68% (17/25) after gluteal turnover flap versus 64% (124/194) after primary closure, OR 2.246; 95% CI 0.734-6.876; p = 0.156 in multivariable analysis. No major wound complications requiring surgical re-intervention occurred after flap closure. Eighteen patients with gluteal turnover flap completed 12-month follow-up, and none of them had chronic perineal sinus, compared to 6% (11/173) after primary closure (p = 0.604). The symptomatic 18-month perineal hernia rate after flap closure was 0%, compared to 9% after primary closure (p = 0.184).

conclusionsThe uncomplicated perineal wound-healing rate after the gluteal turnover flap and primary closure after APR is similar, and no chronic perineal sinus or perineal hernia occurred after flap closure. Future studies have to confirm potential benefits of the gluteal turnover flap.

Indexed as

ProctectomyRectal NeoplasmsHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPerineumPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesSurgical FlapsAbdominoperineal resectionPerineal wound healingRectal cancerWound closure

Identifiers

PMID34263363
PMCPMC8419133
OpenAlexW3179038490

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.