ArticleBMC surgery2023
Comparative short-term and survival outcomes of three specimen extraction techniques in laparoscopic low rectal cancer surgery: does it affect ileostomy closure?
Article in BMC surgery, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical application of the B-type sutured ileostomy in robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Trial
- Linea alba support method of prophylactic loop ileostomy via lower abdominal midline incision for rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to compare the short-term and survival outcomes in laparoscopic low rectal cancer surgery with three different specimen extraction techniques, and whether it affects loop ileostomy closure. MATERIALS AND
methodsA consecutive series of patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection plus protective loop ileostomy (LAR-PLI) were enrolled. Three main techniques, namely specimen extraction through auxiliary incision (EXAI), specimen extraction through stoma incision (EXSI), and specimen eversion and extra-abdominal resection (EVER), were employed. The postoperative short-term and survival outcomes of the three techniques and the impact on loop ileostomy closure were compared.
resultsIn all, 254 patients were enrolled in this study: 104 (40.9%) in the EXAI group, 104 (40.9%) in the EXSI group, and 46 (18.1%) in the EVER group. For primary surgery, EXAI group had significantly longer operative time (P < 0.001), more intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.001), longer length of abdominal incision (P<0.001), longer time to first flatus (P < 0.001), longer time to first defecation (P < 0.001), longer time to first eat (P < 0.001), and longer postoperative hospital stays (P = 0.005) than the EXSI and EVER groups. The primary postoperative complication rate in the EXAI and EVER group was significantly higher than in the EXSI group (P = 0.005). In loop ileostomy closure, EXAI group had significantly longer operative time (P = 0.001), more bleeding volume, and longer postoperative hospital stays (P < 0.001) than the EXSI and EVER groups. For survival outcomes, the 3-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) is 92.6% for all patients. The 3-year LRFS for patients in EXAI, EXSI, and EVER were 90.1%, 95.4%, and 92.7%, with P = 0.476.
conclusionsOur single-center results found that in LAR-PLI surgery for low rectal cancer, the short-term outcomes of specimen extraction through the stoma incision or anus were better than that through the auxiliary incision, but the 3-year LRFS was no statistically different.
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.