Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37515648›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023

The effect of reinforcing sutures and trans-anal drainage tube on the outcome of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: propensity score‑matched analysis.

Hong-Qiang Zhang, Lei Xu, Zhen-Ling Wang, Yu Shao, Yang Chen, Yun-Fei Lu, Zan Fu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hong-Qiang ZhangDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Lei XuDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Zhen-Ling WangDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Yu ShaoDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Yang ChenDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Yun-Fei LuDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Zan FuDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China. fuzan1971@njmu.edu.cn.
Jiangsu Province Hospital · CNNanjing Medical University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation 81470881
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLaparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is currently the predominant treatment modality for rectal tumors, with an ongoing focus on reducing the incidence of postoperative complications. In an effort to decrease the occurrence of anastomotic leakage, two additional steps worth considering are reinforcing the anastomosis with a barbed suture and retaining an anal drain as part of the procedure. The results of the operation were analyzed by comparing them to cases where the anastomosis was performed with a stapler alone.

methodsThis study retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent laparoscopic radical rectal cancer surgery between July 2020 and March 2023. The patients were categorized into three cohorts based on the postoperative management following instrumented anastomosis: cohort A, the instrumented anastomosis alone group; cohort B, the reinforced suture group; and cohort C, the reinforced suture and indwelling transanal drainage tube group. Propensity score matching was performed twice in a 1:1 ratio, comparing cohort B to cohort A and cohort C to cohort B. The objective was to compare the benefits and drawbacks among the different groups in terms of operative time, postoperative outcomes and operative costs.

results529 patients with laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer were eligible for inclusion. the instrumented anastomosis alone group, reinforced suture group and the reinforced suture and indwelling transanal drainage tube group were performed in 205 patients, 198 patients and 126 patients, respectively. Cohort A and Cohort B differed in three variables after PSM: total operative time (p = 0.018), postoperative hospital stay (p < 0.001) and incidence of anastomotic leakage (p = 0.038). Cohort B had a longer total operative time, shorter postoperative hospital stay and a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage. Similarly, cohort C had less postoperative drainage (P = 0.01) and a longer postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.003) when cohort B and cohort C were matched for propensity scores. There was no significant difference in the cost of surgery between the three cohorts.

conclusionsThe incorporation of barbed suture reinforcement significantly reduces the occurrence of postoperative anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgeries. On the other hand, although trans-anal drainage was used as an additional measure to the reinforcement suture of the anastomosis, the utilization of trans-anal drainage tubes does not demonstrate a significant improvement in surgical outcomes.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRectal NeoplasmsAnastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakDrainageHumansPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesSuturesAnastomotic leakageLaparoscopic resectionPropensity score matchingReinforced sutureTrans-anal drainage tube

Identifiers

PMID37515648
OpenAlexW4385381971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.