ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2025
Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing extraperitoneal and transperitoneal routes of colostomy-related complications.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2025. 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.
- Extraperitoneal colostomy reduces parastomal hernia after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection: a propensity score-matched study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Small Bowel Obstruction Caused by Meckel's Diverticulum Entrapped behind Transperitoneal Sigmoid Colostomy: A Case Report.Surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Prophylactic Mesh in Parastomal Hernia Prevention: Current Evidence.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025Review
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
backgroundComplications associated with stomas-including parastomal hernia (PSH), prolapse, mucocutaneous separation, and stoma retraction-provide considerable postoperative challenges for colostomy patients. Selecting between extraperitoneal colostomy (EPC) and transperitoneal colostomy (TPC) pathways is therefore essential for mitigating these complications.
aimTo analyze the existing data regarding the efficacy of EPC compared to TPC in reducing stoma-related complications post-colostomy.
methodsPubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were adopted to uncover pertinent papers in which EPC and TPC approaches were compared. We then conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4.1.
resultsBoth laparoscopic (Lap) and open approaches showed a reduced incidence of PSH in EPC relative to TPC (
conclusionThe extraperitoneal approach may provide benefits in minimizing some stoma-related problems such as PSH, prolapse, mucocutaneous separation, and stoma retraction after colostomy surgery.
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.