ArticleANZ journal of surgery2022
A comparison of extracorporeal side to side or end to side anastomosis following a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison study of two anastomosis techniques in right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and pooling up analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- IsoperistalticWorld journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
- Ileocolic Anastomoses.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2023Review
- The effect of circular stapler size on anastomotic stricture formation in colorectal surgery: A propensity score matched study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Value of different anastomoses in laparoscopic radical right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer: retrospective study and literature review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate whether an extracorporeal side-to-side (SS) or end-to-side (ES) stapled anastomosis impacts short-term and long-term outcomes after an oncological laparoscopic right hemicolectomy.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data from two Victorian tertiary referral hospitals was performed. Patients who underwent oncological resection for colorectal cancer between February 2010 and September 2020 were selected from the colorectal neoplasia database. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the type of stapled anastomosis: Group 1 (functional end-to-end/side-to-side (SS)); and Group 2 (end-to-side (ES)). Primary outcomes were anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, mortality and morbidity, length of stay post-surgery, readmission to hospital, and 30-day mortality.
resultsThis large case series of 1040 patients (SS = 625, ES = 415) demonstrated that the type of stapling technique impacted operative duration and postoperative ileus rates. Patients in the SS group had a faster operation of 108 min rather than 130 min in the ES group (p < 0.001). The SS group were more likely to experience a post-operative ileus (p < 0.001) with no impact on length of stay (SS, 7 days versus ES, 7 days; p = 0.14). There were no differences between the two groups with respect to lymph node yield, lymph node ratio, anastomotic leaks, return to theatre, 30-day mortality and 5-year overall survival. DISCUSSION: The type of extracorporeal stapled anastomosis following an oncological laparoscopic right hemicolectomy has minimal impact on morbidity and survival outcomes; however, a side-to-side stapled anastomosis is more likely to be a faster operation with a higher postoperative ileus rate.
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.