Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39845387›Full record

ArticleSurgery in practice and science2023

Laparoscopic versus open loop ileostomy reversal: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tyler McKechnie, Léa Tessier, Tharani Anpalagan, Megan Chu, Yung Lee, Kathleen Logie, Aristithes Doumouras, Nalin Amin, Dennis Hong, Cagla Eskicioglu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgery in practice and science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

10 authors.

Tyler McKechnieDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Léa TessierMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Tharani AnpalaganMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Megan ChuMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Yung LeeDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Kathleen LogieDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Aristithes DoumourasDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Nalin AminDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Dennis HongDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Cagla EskiciogluDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Loop ileostomies (LIs) are used for temporary fecal diversion to protect downstream colorectal anastomoses. Standard operative approach for LI reversal has been through an open technique. Recently, laparoscopic LI reversal has been employed and studied. The aim of this systematic review was to compare laparoscopic and open LI reversal. Methods: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Articles were included if they compared rate of postoperative morbidity and/or length of stay (LOS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic or open LI reversal. Pairwise meta-analyses using inverse variance random effects was performed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evidence (GRADE) approach was conducted to assess quality of evidence. Results: From 410 citations, four observational studies with 213 patients undergoing laparoscopic LI reversal and 176 patients undergoing open LI reversal met inclusion. Patients in the laparoscopic group had significantly shorter LOS (MD -0.39, 95%CI -0.73 to -0.04, Conclusions: This review presents low quality evidence that laparoscopic LI reversal is a feasible approach that may reduce postoperative LOS and sSSI compared to open LI reversal without increasing operative time. Future prospective comparative studies are required to confirm the findings of the present review.

Indexed as

Bowel resectionColorectal surgeryLaparoscopyLoop IleostomyLoop ileostomy reversals

Identifiers

PMID39845387
PMCPMC11749981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.