ArticleThe British journal of surgery2023
Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients.
Article in The British journal of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of anastomotic leak after elective anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and pooled analysis.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Pooled it
- Infection-targeted innovations in anastomotic leak management: endoscopic advances, antimicrobial biomaterials, and precision strategies.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- Prevention, Recognition, and Management of Anastomotic Leakage and Pelvic Sepsis After Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Structured Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of C-reactive protein in detecting anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Prophylactic ileostomy vs. nonprophylactic ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer (PILLAR): a prospective, multicenter, cohort study in china.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Article
- Colorectal-vaginal fistula after rectal cancer resection: international comparative cohort study of characteristics and treatment.The British journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Hospital costs of different treatment strategies for anastomotic leakage after total mesorectal excision: a multicentre cost analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- TreatmENT of AnastomotiC LeakagE after colon cancer resection: the TENTACLE - Colon study.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 13 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied.
methodsPatients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2 : 1).
resultsOf 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days).
conclusionPrimary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding.
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.