Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40092950›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2025

Is intraperitoneal isoperistaltic side-to-side anastomosis a safe surgical procedure in radical colon cancer surgery.

Bin Wu, Jing-Tao Zhu, He-Xin Lin, Yu-Hua Dai, Tian-Sheng Lin, An-Le Huang, Yi-Nan Chen, Yong-Wen Li, Hai-Bin Wang, Yi-Fu Chen and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

14 authors.

Bin WuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China.
Jing-Tao ZhuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China.
He-Xin LinDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China.
Yu-Hua DaiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China.
Tian-Sheng LinDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China.
An-Le HuangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China.
Yi-Nan ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China.
Yong-Wen LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China.
Hai-Bin WangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China.
Yi-Fu ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China.
Dong-Han ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China.
Huang-Dao YuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China.
Jun YouDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China.
Qing-Qi HongDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361003, Fujian Province, China. hqqsums@aliyun.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer, one of the most common malignancies, is primarily treated through surgery. With the widespread use of laparoscopy, gastrointestinal reconstruction remains a key area of research. The choice between intraperitoneal anastomosis (IA) and extraperitoneal anastomosis (EA) remains a subject of considerable debate. This study uses intraperitoneal isoperistaltic side-to-side anastomosis (IISSA) with hand-sewn closure of the common opening to evaluate its safety and short-term outcomes. It is hypothesized that this technique may offer better short-term outcomes than EA.

aimTo investigate the safety and short-term outcomes of IISSA with hand-sewn closure of the common opening compared to EA.

methodsPatients who underwent laparoscopic radical colon cancer surgery between January 2018 and June 2022 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University were retrospectively analyzed. Surgical, postoperative, and pathological features of the IA and EA groups were observed before and after propensity score matching. Patients with right-sided and left-sided colon cancer were separated, each further divided into IA and EA groups (R-IA

resultsAfter propensity score matching, 63 pairs were matched in each group. In surgical characteristics, the IA group exhibited less blood loss and shorter incisions than the EA group. Regarding postoperative recovery, the IA group showed earlier recovery of gastrointestinal function. Pathologically, the IA group had greater lymph node clearance. Relative to the R-EA group, the R-IA group experienced reduced blood loss, shorter assisted incisions, earlier recovery of gastrointestinal functions and greater lymph node dissection. When compared to the L-EA group, the L-IA group demonstrated earlier postoperative anal exhaust and defecation, along with a reduced length of hospitalization. Regarding postoperative complications, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups either after matching or in the stratified analyses.

conclusionCompared to EA, IISSA with hand-sewn closure of the common opening is a safe and feasible option for laparoscopic radical colon cancer surgery.

Indexed as

Colon cancerExtraperitoneal anastomosisHand-sewnIntraperitoneal anastomosisIsoperistaltic side-to-side anastomosisLaparoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID40092950
PMCPMC11866253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.