Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37013791›Full record

SynthesisSurgical innovation2023

Ghost Ileostomy Versus Loop Ileostomy Following Oncologic Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Tyler McKechnie, Jay Lee, Yung Lee, Léa Tessier, Nalin Amin, Aristithes Doumouras, Dennis Hong, Cagla Eskicioglu

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06633133 (Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Virtual Ileostomy Versus Diverting Ileostomy in Patients Undergoing Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer), 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
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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.

NCT06633133 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Virtual Ileostomy Versus Diverting Ileostomy in Patients Undergoing Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: a Multicentre, Prospective, Open-label, Blinded Endpoint, PROBE Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorDaping Hospital and the Research Institute of Surgery of the Third Military Medical UniversityRan2024 to 2030Enrolled620ConditionsRectal CancerArmsVirtual ileostomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tyler McKechnieDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jay LeeMichael G DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Yung LeeDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Léa TessierMichael G DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2403-9079
Nalin AminDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Aristithes DoumourasDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Dennis HongDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Cagla EskiciogluDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare ghost ileostomy (GI) and loop ileostomy (LI) in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: LIs are often fashioned to protect downstream anastomoses following oncologic resection for low rectal cancer at medium-to-high risk of anastomotic leak. More recently, GIs have been utilized in patients with low-to-medium risk anastomoses to reduce the rate of unnecessary stomas.

methodsMedline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Studies investigating the use of GI in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer were included. The primary outcomes were anastomotic leak and postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included stoma-related complications and length of stay (LOS). Pairwise meta-analyses were performed with inverse variance random effects.

resultsFrom 242 citations, 14 studies with 946 patients were included. In comparative studies, 359 patients were undergoing GI and 266 patients were undergoing LI. Pairwise meta-analysis revealed no differences in the prevalence of anastomotic leak (OR 1.40, 95%CI .73-2.68,

conclusionsGI appears to be a safe alternative to LI following oncologic resection for rectal cancer. Larger, prospective comparative studies are warranted to evaluate the use of GI in patients deemed to be at low-to-medium risk of anastomotic leak.

Indexed as

IleostomyRectal NeoplasmsAnastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakHumansPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRetrospective Studiesanastomotic leakghost ileostomyrectal cancertumor-specific mesorectal excisionvirtual ileostomy

Identifiers

PMID37013791
PMCPMC10403968
OpenAlexW4362521341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.