ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Clinical analysis of different intestinal reconstruction methods after primary cytoreductive surgery combined with rectal resection for advanced ovarian cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: To compare different intestinal reconstruction methods after intestinal resection for advanced ovarian malignancy. Methods: Retrospective data of patients with advanced ovarian malignancy were collected and then assigned into three groups: primary intestinal anastomosis, protective enterostomy and colostomy. General clinical characteristics, intraoperative findings and postoperative outcomes were compared between the three groups. Results: A total of 530 cases were included for final analysis. The colostomy group had a lower serum albumin level, larger volume of ascites, higher likelihood of multiple intestinal resections and lower likelihood of rectal resection, lower peritoneal cancer index, more intraoperative blood loss, transfusions and infusions, lower likelihood of optimal cytoreductive surgery and shorter interval time to chemotherapy than the other two groups ( Conclusions: Colostomy can be adopted for advanced ovarian cancer patients with a large ascites volume, hypoproteinemia, large intraoperative blood and fluid loss volumes, multiple intestinal resections, anastomoses located below the peritoneal reflection, high PCI and suboptimal cytoreductive surgery. For patients with good intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, one anastomosis, an anastomosis located above the peritoneal reflection, low PCI or optimal cytoreductive surgery, intestinal anastomosis can be carried out to restore the normal physiological function of the intestine. For patients with a large volume of ascites (≥500 mL), multiple anastomoses or an anastomosis located below the peritoneal reflection, intestinal anastomosis combined with protective enterostomy has an advantage over intestinal anastomosis alone.
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.