ArticleThe American surgeon2022
Anastomotic Outcomes in Military Exploratory Laparotomies in the Modern Combat Era.
Article in The American surgeon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntestinal anastomoses in military settings are performed in severely injured patients who often undergo damage control laparotomy in austere environments. We describe anastomotic outcomes of patients from recent wars.
methodsMilitary personnel with combat-related intra-abdominal injuries (June 2009-December 2014) requiring laparotomy with resection and anastomosis were analyzed. Patients were evacuated from Iraq or Afghanistan to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (Germany) before being transferred to participating U.S. military hospitals.
resultsAmong 341 patients who underwent 1053 laparotomies, 87 (25.5%) required ≥1 anastomosis. Stapled anastomosis only was performed in 57.5% of patients, while hand-sewn only was performed in 14.9%, and 9.2% had both stapled and hand-sewn techniques (type unknown for 18.4%). Anastomotic failure occurred in 15% of patients. Those with anastomotic failure required more anastomoses (median 2 anastomoses, interquartile range [IQR] 1-3 vs. 1 anastomosis, IQR 1-2, DISCUSSION: Military trauma patients have a similar anastomotic failure rate to civilian trauma patients. Patients with anastomotic failure were more likely to have had more anastomoses and more total laparotomies. No definitive conclusions can be drawn about anastomotic outcome differences between hand-sewn and stapled techniques.
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.