Trial reportLangenbecks Archiv fur Chirurgie1985
[Is the protective colostomy in left-sided resections of the colorectum necessary?].
Trial report in Langenbecks Archiv fur Chirurgie, 1985. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Operative mortality in carcinoma of the rectum. Results of the German Multicentre Study.International journal of colorectal disease · 1993Article
- [Does retroperitonealization of anastomoses in left-sided large intestine resections lower postoperative mortality?].Langenbecks Archiv fur Chirurgie · 1988Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a prospective clinical study 100 left-side colon and anterior rectum resections were performed without a protective colostomy under standardized conditions: Whole gut lavage, oral and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, parenteral highcaloric nutrition perioperatively, anastomosing technique end to end, single layer, with atraumatic sutures (3 X 0 Vicryl, Dexon) or EEA stapler. A clinically relevant insufficiency of the anastomosis was seen in 4%, wound-healing impairment in 7%, only one patient died. Due to careful preparation and operation technique the frequency of septic complications and mortality nowadays is very low. On the other side a protective colostomy is afflicted with psychical problems to the patient, higher costs because of the longer period of hospitalization and a not unimportant number of complications of colostomy closure. Therefore we consider the routine usage of protective colostomy as not being necessary in elective colon and anterior rectum resections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
3912640What 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.