SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
Laparoscopic vs. open loop ileostomy reversal: a meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies.
Synthesis 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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Laparoscopic versus open ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
- Laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosisWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe present meta-analysis compares laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal (LLIR) with open loop ileostomy reversal (OLIR) to evaluate the advantages of the laparoscopic technique compared to the traditional open technique in ileostomy reversal.
methodsPrimary endpoints were hospital stay and overall complications. Secondary endpoints were operative time, EBL, readmission, medical complications, surgical complications, reoperation, wound infection, anastomotic leak, intestinal obstruction, and cost of the procedures. The included studies were also divided based on the type of anastomotic approach: extracorporeal laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal (ELLIR) and intracorporeal laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal (ILLIR).
resultsIn the analysis, 4 studies were included. Three hundred fifty-four patients were enrolled. As primary outcomes, a significant difference was found in hospital stay between the LLIR and OLIR groups (MD = -0.67, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.19, P = 0.007). The overall complications outcome resulted in favor of the LLIR group (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95, P = 0.03). As secondary outcomes, the operative time was in favor of the OLIR group (MD = 19.18, 95% CI 10.20-28.16, P < 0.001). Surgical complications were lower in the LLIR group than in the OLIR group. No other differences between the secondary endpoints were found. Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in hospital stay between the ILLIR and OLIR groups (MD = -0.92, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.30, P = 0.004). The overall complications outcome significantly favored the ILLIR group (RR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.15-0.96, P = 0.04).
conclusionOur meta-analysis shows an advantage in terms of shorter post-operative hospitalization and reduction of complications of LLIR compared to OLIR. The sub-group analysis shows that performing an extracorporeal anastomosis exposes the same risks of the open technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37615738What 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.