ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
Comparison of specimen extraction site and another site for protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parastomal hernia outcomes after sutured versus unsutured composite techniques for specimen-extraction-site loop ileostomy following laparoscopic low anterior resection: the UNSEAL randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Linea alba support method of prophylactic loop ileostomy via lower abdominal midline incision for rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Feasibility and safety of specimen extractionFrontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProtective loop ileostomy is commonly performed in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection to prevent the serious complications of anastomotic fistula. It is usually created at the right lower quadrant of the abdomen and another wound is required for stoma. The study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ileostomy at the specimen extraction site (SES) and another site (AS) beside the auxiliary incision.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 101 eligible patients with pathologically diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the rectum from January 2020 to December 2021 in the study center. According to whether the ileostomy was at the specimen extraction site, patients were divided into SES group (40 patients) and AS group (61 patients). Clinicopathological characteristics, the intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were measured.
resultsUnivariate analysis showed that the operative time was significantly shorter and the blood loss was significantly less in the SES group than in the AS group during laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, the time to first flatus was significantly shorter, and the pain was significantly less in the SES group than in the AS group during ileostomy closure. The postoperative complications were similar in both groups. Multivariable analysis showed that ileostomy at the specimen extraction site was a significant factor influencing the operative time and blood loss of rectal resection, and influencing the pain and the time to first flatus during ileostomy closure.
conclusionCompared to ileostomy at AS, protective loop ileostomy at SES was time-saving and less bleeding during laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, and more quick to first flatus and less pain during stoma closure, and did not lead to more postoperative complications. The median incision of the lower abdomen and the left lower abdominal incision were both good sites for ileostomy.
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.