ArticleBMC surgery2022
MRI diagnose post-operative anastomotic leak in patients with rectal cancer: preliminary experience.
Article in BMC surgery, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevention, Recognition, and Management of Anastomotic Leakage and Pelvic Sepsis After Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Structured Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Outcome of selective non-diverting low anterior resection after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and curative surgery for proximal rectal cancer: A prospective case series.Middle East journal of digestive diseases · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most serious postoperative complications after colorectal anastomosis. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the early detection of AL in patients with clinically suspected AL after rectal anterior resection.
methodsThis was a prospective study including patients who underwent anterior resection and postoperative MRI examination. AL was diagnosed by comprehensive indictors, which were mainly confirmed by clinical signs, symptoms, and retrograde contrast enema (RCE) radiography. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of diagnosing AL with MRI were calculated.
resultsIn total, 347 patients received anterior resection for rectal cancer, and 28 patients were suspected to have AL. Finally, 23 patients were included and received MRI examination. The median time interval from surgery to MRI was 10 days (3-21 days). The median distance from anastomosis to anal verge was 4.0 cm (2.0-10 cm), and 11 patients underwent diverted ileostomy. Eighteen patients had an anastomotic leak, including one patient who had a pelvic abscess and five patients who had no evidence of AL in the MRI examination. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 94.4% (95% CI 70.6% to 99.7%) and 80% (95% CI 29.8% to 98.9%), respectively. The PPV was 0.94 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.99) and the NPV was 0.80 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.99). For patients who had anastomosis less than 5 cm, the diagnostic accuracy of MRI was 93.7% (15/16). T2-weighted imaging with fat suppression can effectively reveal the leak track.
conclusionsThe accuracy of plain MRI examination in diagnosing AL was favorable for patients with a suspected AL. T2-weighted imaging with fat suppression was the best imaging modality to diagnose AL. A multicenter prospective study with more samples is needed to further determine the safety and feasibility of MRI in the diagnosis of AL.
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.