ArticleScientific reports2024
Suspension and suturing technique can reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer excision: a single, prospective, cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The application value of Da Vinci linear powered stapler SureForm in robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: a prospective randomized clinical trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Microenvironment-Responsive Nanomaterials for Colorectal Anastomotic Healing: A Signal-Threshold-Response Framework for Stage-Adaptive Repair.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Evaluation of intestinal tissue safety during the compression process of circular end-to-end anastomosis stapler based on finite element simulation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate the value of suspension and suturing technique in the prevention of anastomotic leakage of rectal cancer following double stapling technique. We performed a cohort study between August 2018 and December 2021 and analyzed the patients with rectal cancer underwent radical resection and double stapling technique at the department of general surgery. 324 patients were recruited in this research. There were 124 patients in control group and 200 patients in study group. There was a total of 19 patients present with anastomotic leakage. The incidence of anastomotic leakage was 5.8%. 12 patients were in control group and 7 in study group. The incidence of anastomotic leakage in control group was 9.7%. while the incidence of anastomotic leakage in study group was 3.5%, which was significantly lower than that in control group (p = 0.021). There were 4 patients present with anastomotic bleeding in control group (3.2%) while there were 6 cases with anastomotic bleeding in study group (3%) with no statistical differences. The average operation time of patients with anastomotic leakage was longer than that of patients without anastomotic leakage (p = 0.048). The intraoperative blood loss of patients with anastomotic leakage was more (p = 0.003) and the proportion of diabetes in anastomotic leakage group was larger (p = 0.003). Suspension and suturing technique could reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage of patients with rectal cancer underwent double stapling technique. It is safe, simple, and easy to perform. Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and diabetes may be high-risk factors of anastomotic leakage.
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.