ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2023
Efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for loop colostomy: a propensity-score-matched analysis.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stoma related complications: A registry study based on a prospective registration system.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeColostomy is a common procedure for fecal diversion, but the optimal colostomy approach is unclear in terms of surgical outcomes and stoma-related complications. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and feasibility of laparoscopic loop colostomy.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent loop colostomy at Shizuoka Cancer Center in Japan between April 2010 and March 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on surgical approach: the laparoscopic (LAP) and open (OPEN) groups. Surgical outcomes and the incidences of stoma-related complications such as stomal prolapse (SP), parastomal hernia (PSH), and skin disorders (SD) were compared with and without propensity score matching.
resultsOf the 388 eligible patients, 180 (46%) were in the LAP group and 208 (54%) were in the OPEN group. The male-to-female ratio was 5.5:4.5 in the Lap group and was 5.3:4.7 in the OPEN group, respectively. The median age was 68 years (range, 31-88 years) in the LAP group and 65 years (range, 23-93 years) in the OPEN group, respectively. The LAP group, compared with the OPEN group, had a shorter operative time and lower incidences of surgical site infection (3.9% versus 16.3%, respectively; p < 0.01) and SD (11.7% versus 24.5%, respectively; p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the LAP and OPEN groups in the incidence of SP (17.3% versus 17.3%, respectively) or PSH (8.9% versus 6.7%, respectively). After propensity score matching, the incidences of surgical site infection and SD were significantly lower in the LAP group than in the OPEN group, while there were no significant differences in the operative time or the incidences of SP and PSH.
conclusionOur results suggest that laparoscopic surgery could be beneficial and feasible in loop colostomy.
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.