ArticlePediatric surgery international2024
Classic divided sigmoidostomy vs loop sigmoidostomy in anorectal malformations: time for change?
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2024. 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.
- Laparoscopically assisted versus open colostomy for anorectal malformations: a comparison of postoperative outcomes.Pediatric surgery international · 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
purposeDivided sigmoidostomy (DS) is the classic stoma for patients with anorectal malformations (ARM). Loop sigmoidostomies (LS) in ARM are associated with a higher risk of stoma prolapse and urinary tract infections (UTI). This is not clearly supported by literature. We compared our experience with both techniques.
methodsRetrospective study of ARM patients who underwent DS or LS between 2013 and 2023. We analysed demographics, associated malformations, intraoperative variables, oral intake and stoma functioning times, hospital stay, complications, prolapses, and UTI.
resultsOf 40 patients, 29 underwent open DS and 11 laparoscopic LS. Demographics, malformation type, associated anomalies, surgical time, intraoperative and anaesthetic complications were comparable. Postoperative complications were higher in DS than LS [14(48.3%) vs 1(9.1%), (p = 0.02)], mostly due to wound complications [12(41.3%) vs 0(0%), (p = 0.01)]; with 3 dehiscenses and 3 strictures reintervened. The hours to oral intake and stoma functioning were higher for DS [48(39-90) and 48(24-48) vs 24(24-48) and 24(24-24), (p < 0.05)], with more days of hospital stay [36(19-60) vs 8(5-10), (p = 0.001)]. Prolapses [1(3.4%) vs 1(9.1%)] and UTIs [3(10.3%) vs 1(9.1%) (p > 0.05)] were comparable.
conclusionLS in ARM patients have no higher risk of prolapse or UTI than DS. DS had more complications, mostly wound infections, strictures and dehiscenses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39254865What 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.