Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38418896›Full record

Observational studyColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2024

Management of acute and chronic pelvic sepsis after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer-a 10-year experience of a national referral centre.

Sarah Sharabiany, Johanna J Joosten, Gijsbert D Musters, Kevin Talboom, Pieter J Tanis, Wilhelmus A Bemelman, Roel Hompes

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Management of acute and chronic pelvic sepsis after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer-a 10-year experience of a national referral centre.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024
    Observational
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.

Sarah SharabianyDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2222-2037
Johanna J JoostenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6381-8182
Gijsbert D MustersDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kevin TalboomDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2007-4934
Pieter J TanisDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3146-3310
Wilhelmus A BemelmanDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Roel HompesDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimUncontrolled pelvic sepsis following rectal cancer surgery may lead to dramatic consequences with significant impact on patients' quality of life. The aim of this retrospective observational study is to evaluate management of pelvic sepsis after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer at a national referral centre.

methodReferred patients with acute or chronic pelvic sepsis after sphincter preserving rectal cancer resection, with the year of referral between 2010 and 2014 (A) or between 2015 and 2020 (B), were included. The main outcome was control of pelvic sepsis at the end of follow-up, with healed anastomosis with restored faecal stream (RFS) as co-primary outcome.

resultsIn total 136 patients were included: 49 in group A and 87 in group B. After a median follow-up of 82 months (interquartile range 35-100) in group A and 42 months (interquartile range 22-60) in group B, control of pelvic sepsis was achieved in all patients who received endoscopic vacuum assisted surgical closure (7/7 and 2/2), in 91% (19/21) and 89% (31/35) of patients who received redo anastomosis (P = 1.000) and in 100% (18/18) and 95% (41/43) of patients who received intersphincteric resection (P = 1.000), respectively. Restorative procedures resulted in a healed anastomosis with RFS in 61% (17/28) of patients in group A and 68% (25/37) of patients in group B (P = 0.567).

conclusionHigh rates of success can be achieved with surgical salvage of pelvic sepsis in a dedicated tertiary referral centre, without significant differences over time. In well selected and motivated patients a healed anastomosis with RFS can be achieved in the majority.

Indexed as

ProctectomyRectal NeoplasmsSepsisAcute DiseaseAgedAnastomosis, SurgicalChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyPelvic InfectionPostoperative ComplicationsReferral and ConsultationReoperationcolorectalpelvic sepsisrectal cancertotal mesorectal excision

Identifiers

PMID38418896
PMCPMC12150826
OpenAlexW4392291163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.