Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35478159›Full record

ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)

Ghost Ileostomy: Safe and Cost-effective Alternative to Ileostomy After Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis.

Alberto Vega Hernández, Jakob Otten, Hildegard Christ, Christoph Ulrici, Elvin Piriyev, Sebastian Ludwig, Claudia Rudroff

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract readControlled Clinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04573075 (Is a Ghost Ileostomy a Safe Alternative to a Protective Loop Ileostomy for Patients After Colorectal Resections ?), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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.

NCT04573075 nacompletednot on this map

Is a Ghost Ileostomy a Safe Alternative to a Protective Loop Ileostomy for Patients After Colorectal Resections ?

TypeinterventionalSponsorEvangelisches Klinikum Köln Weyertal gGmbHRan2019 to 2022Enrolled257ConditionsColorectal SurgeryArmsGhost ileostomy, loop ileostomy, no outlet
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alberto Vega HernándezDepartment of Visceral Surgery and Functional Lower GI Surgery, Evangelisches Klinikum Koeln Weyertal, Cologne, Germany.
Jakob OttenDepartment of Visceral Surgery and Functional Lower GI Surgery, Evangelisches Klinikum Koeln Weyertal, Cologne, Germany.
Hildegard ChristInstitute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology (IMSB), University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Christoph UlriciDepartment of Visceral Surgery and Functional Lower GI Surgery, Evangelisches Klinikum Koeln Weyertal, Cologne, Germany.
Elvin PiriyevDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Evangelisches Klinikum Koeln Weyertal, Medical Faculty, University of Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany.
Sebastian Ludwigdepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Cologne and Medical Faculty, Cologne, Germany sebastian.ludwig@uk-koeln.de.
Claudia RudroffDepartment of Visceral Surgery and Functional Lower GI Surgery, Evangelisches Klinikum Koeln Weyertal, Cologne, Germany; claudia@rudroff.com.
Evangelisches Klinikum Köln Weyertal · DEUniversity Hospital Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimEndometriosis infiltrating the rectum often requires resection with a protecting stoma. A ghost ileostomy (GI) is an alternative to prevent the psychological burden for the young women affected. The present study evaluated the safety and cost-effectiveness of the ghost ileostomy (GI) procedure in a group of patients after rectal resection for deep infiltrating endometriosis. PATIENTS AND

methodsThe prospective controlled interventional trial was conducted in 54 consecutive patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum. GI was considered after ultra-low resection with primary anastomosis, previous colorectal anastomosis, or pelvic redo surgery. Loop ileostomy (LI) was performed after simultaneous colpotomy with suture, only. Operating time, morbidity according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC), duration of hospital stay, and patient satisfaction were obtained. Individual costs were estimated for the endometriosis procedure with or without a GI or LI, including stoma supply and closure expenses.

resultsOf the 54 patients, 27 received GI (50%), whereas 4 underwent LI (7%). The remaining 23 patients received no outlet (NO). The complication rate did not differ among the GI, LI, and NO groups. Two cases were re-operated and required a diverting stoma, one in the GI and the NO group each. The additional healthcare expenses for each patient receiving a LI averaged 6,000 €. The patients were very satisfied with the option of a GI.

conclusionGI is a cost-effective and safe alternative to LI after rectal resection for deep infiltrating endometriosis in cases where it is required. The individual costs per patient were reduced substantially, with a cumulative savings of 160,000 € in healthcare expenditure. Additionally, the method clearly lowers the psychological burden on the young women concerned.

Indexed as

EndometriosisIleostomyCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansProspective StudiesRectumcost-effectivenessghost ileostomyloop ileostomyprospective clinical studyrectal endometriosisRectal resection

Identifiers

PMID35478159
PMCPMC9087109
OpenAlexW4225099282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.