ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2022
Comparison of blowhole colostomy and loop ostomy for palliation of acute malignant colonic obstruction.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transverse blowhole colostomy versus Hartmann's for urgent management of large bowel obstruction secondary to diverticular stricture.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Preventing Anastomotic Leakage, a Devastating Complication of Colorectal Surgery.Ewha medical journal · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSurgery to create a stoma for decompression might be required for unresectable stage IV cancer patients with complete colonic obstruction. The aim of this study was to compare the results of blowhole colostomy with those of loop ostomy.
methodsPalliative ileostomy or colostomy procedures performed at a single center between January 2011 and October 2020, were analyzed retrospectively. Fifty-nine patients were identified during this period. The demographic characteristics and outcomes between the blowhole colostomy group (n=24) and the loop ostomy group (n=35) were compared.
resultsThe median operative time tended to be shorter in the blowhole colostomy group (52.5 minutes; interquartile range [IQR], 43-65) than in the loop ostomy group (60 minutes; IQR, 40-107), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P=0.162). The median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter with blowhole colostomy (blowhole, 13 days [IQR, 9-23]; loop, 21 days [IQR, 14-37]; P=0.013). Mean cecum diameter was significantly larger in the blowhole group than in the loop group (8.83±1.91 cm vs. 6.78±2.36 cm, P=0.001), and the emergency operation rate was higher in the blowhole group than in the loop group (22 of 24 [91.7%] vs. 23 of 35 [65.7%], P=0.021).
conclusionIn surgical emergencies, diverting a blowhole colostomy can be safe and effective for palliative management of colonic obstruction in patients with end-stage cancer and might reduce the operative time in emergent situations.
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.