ArticleBMC surgery2024
Comparative analysis of Side-to-End and End-to-End intestinal anastomosis techniques: insights from a rat model study.
Article in BMC surgery, 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.
- Postoperative ileus as a surgical challenge: comparative outcomes of end-to-end and side-to-side ileal anastomosis in radical cystectomy.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimal selection of anastomosis technique is crucial in colectomy surgeries to ensure success and minimize postoperative complications. Various methods, both manual and stapler-assisted, are employed for intestinal anastomosis. This study aims to compare two surgical methods of intestinal anastomosis through macroscopic and microscopic examination.
methodsTwenty-five albino Wistar rats were randomly divided into two groups: the first group (n = 10) underwent Side-to-End anastomosis, while the second group (n = 15) underwent End-to-End anastomosis. After a 5-day observation period under uniform laboratory conditions, both groups underwent a second surgery. Anastomoses were assessed for adhesion and leakage, followed by histopathological examination of excised samples using the oxygenal method. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney statistical method with a significance level of p < 0.05.
resultsFollowing the initial surgery, the second group exhibited a higher mortality rate compared to the first group. Based on our data, the mortality of the rats was unrelated to the type of anastomosis or the surgical procedure. The higher mortality rate in one group was due to other factors. Additionally, the second group demonstrated significantly greater adhesion formation. Histopathological examination revealed no significant difference between the groups, although neovascularization and collagen accumulation appeared more pronounced in the Side-to-End group.
conclusionHistopathologically, Side-to-End anastomosis showed superior repair conditions compared to End-to-End anastomosis. However, due to the limited sample size, statistical significance was not achieved. Conversely, Side-to-End anastomosis was associated with increased adhesion formation. These findings suggest the need for further comprehensive studies with larger sample sizes conducted in well-equipped centers to ascertain the preferred distal colon anastomosis technique and to achieve statistically significant results that can be more reliably generalized.
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.