ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2025
Bedside endoscopic inspection of colorectal anastomoses in the early postoperative period: a 2-center prospective feasibility study.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost analysis of the use of digital rectoscopy versus flexible sigmoidoscopy in rectal cancer patients undergoing watch and wait.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of C-reactive protein in detecting anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeEarly diagnosis of anastomotic leakage (AL) after colorectal surgery can reduce severe postoperative morbidity and ensure successful treatment. This study evaluated the feasibility of bedside endoscopic inspection of the anastomosis early postoperatively using a point-of-care digital rectoscope.
methodsThis prospective study was conducted at 2 tertiary centers. Patients who underwent minimally invasive or open sphincter-preserving surgery with creation of a colorectal or coloanal anastomosis were included. Data were collected from December 2022 to October 2023. Bedside anastomotic inspections were performed postoperative day (POD) 3 to 5 using a point-of-care digital rectoscope. The primary outcome was feasibility, defined as adequate clinical assessment of the anastomosis during bedside inspection. Secondary outcomes included patient tolerability, efficacy compared to other diagnostic methods, and clinical outcomes during 90 days of follow-up.
resultsIn total, 35 patients were included. All bedside anastomotic inspections were carried out successfully. The examination showed complete visibility of the entire anastomosis in 30 patients (85.7%), with minimal discomfort reported by 3 (8.6%). No adverse events were recorded. AL occurred in 6 patients (17.1%), with 3 cases detected during bedside inspections between POD 3 and 5. Two leaks were detected without clinical or biochemical suspicion. Three patients with negative rectoscopy between POD 3 and 5 were later diagnosed with AL: 2 by a computed tomography scan and 1 by a bedside rectoscopy.
conclusionBedside inspection of rectal anastomoses early postoperatively is feasible and tolerable for patients. Routine anastomotic inspections can detect early AL even without clear clinical or biochemical signs.
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.