ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2021
Is pull-through an acceptable replacement for low anterior resection for rectal cancers in low-income setting? A case-control study.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Frequency of Urination Dysfunction in Patients Operated on for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancers are the second most common cancers overall and are the third deadliest cancers. Complete resection is the treatment of choice for rectal cancers and chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is strongly recommended in stage 2 and 3. Low anterior resection (LAR) is the most common procedure used, but it requires the use of stapler which might be very expensive as one study estimated the median cost of LAR inpatients to be over 13.000 USD. However, coloanal pull-through (PT) used to be the common procedure before introducing staplers in the twentieth century and can be less expensive, but with higher complication rates. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a retrospective case-control study from patients' records who underwent either LAR or PT for their rectal cancer in Syria. All patients had either stage 2 or 3 cancer and were treated by the same group of surgeons and received the same adjuvant and neoadjuvant CRT protocol. Patients from both groups had the same prognosis and stages.
resultsThis study included 60 participants, of which, 30 had LAR and 30 had PT. They all had successful removal of the cancer and follow-ups were for 1 year after the surgery. There were no significant differences between the two procedures in post-operative leak, urinary retention, stricture, sexual function and recurrence (p > 0.05). However, post-operative incontinence was more frequent with PT (p = 0.027).
conclusionPT can be an acceptable substitute of LAR in low income settings despite having higher incidence of incontinence.
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.