ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Management of Anastomotic Leakage after Colorectal Resection: Survey among the German CHIR-Net Centers.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevention and management of anastomotic leakage after colorectal resection: evolving trends among Italian surgeons. A SICCR survey.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Analysis of risk factors for anastomotic fistula in patients after laparoscopic radical resection for rectal cancer.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- [Anastomotic leaks in colorectal surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- The impact of anastomotic leakage characteristics on the occurrence of anastomotic stenosis after colorectal resection, a retrospective cohort study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
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
(1) Background: A widely accepted algorithm for the management of colorectal anastomotic leakage (CAL) is difficult to establish. The present study aimed to evaluate the current clinical practice on the management of CAL among the German CHIR-Net centers. (2) Methods: An online survey of 38 questions was prepared using the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer (ISREC) grading score of CAL combined with both patient- and surgery-related factors. All CHIR-Net centers received a link to the online questionary in February 2020. (3) Results: Most of the answering centers (55%) were academic hospitals (41%). Only half of them use the ISREC definition and grading for the management of CAL. A preference towards grade B management (no surgical intervention) of CAL was observed in both young and fit as well as elderly and/or frail patients with deviating ostomy and non-ischemic anastomosis. Elderly and/or frail patients without fecal diversion are generally treated as grade C leakage (surgical intervention). A grade C management of CAL is preferred in case of ischemic bowel, irrespective of the presence of an ostomy. Within grade C management, the intestinal continuity is preserved in a subgroup of patients with non-ischemic bowel, with or without ostomy, or young and fit patients with ischemic bowel under ostomy protection. (4) Conclusions: There is no generally accepted therapy algorithm for CAL management within CHIR-Net Centers in Germany. Further effort should be made to increase the application of the ISREC definition and grading of CAL in clinical practice.
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.