ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2023
Efficacy of air leak test in detection of anastomotic leaks after rectal excision: a retrospective case-controlled study.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Although its efficacy is uncertain, an intraoperative air leak test (ALT) is commonly used to detect mechanical defects following bowel anastomosis. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ALT to detect anastomotic leakage (AL) following rectal excision. Methods: We reviewed our database for patients with rectal cancers who had undergone curative surgery between January 2012 and January 2018. Patients were grouped according to whether or not an ALT was performed. Propensity score analyses were performed to compare outcomes for groups in a 1:1 case-matched cohort. Results: In total, 1,191 patients underwent rectal excision; 438 (219 in each group) formed the case-matched cohort for analysis. The protective stoma rate was 16.0% and 14.6% in the ALT and the no-ALT groups, respectively (P = 0.791). In the ALT group, 2 patients (0.9%) showed a positive result and were treated with rectal tube drainage, resulting in no leakage. There was no significant difference in postoperative AL rate between the groups (ALT group: 4.6% Conclusion: ALT played a minimal role in detecting AL following rectal excision. Further studies are warranted to validate our results and clarify whether AL can be prevented with ALT or alternative methods.
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.