ArticleScientific reports2025
Efficacy of transanal drainage tubes in postoperative anastomotic leakage in patients with laparoscopic anterior rectal resection without diverting stoma.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Comparative efficacy of reinforced suturing, transanal drainage tube, and no additional intervention in preventing anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: a network meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Preoperative social frailty and short-term postoperative outcomes in gastrointestinal cancer surgery: a multicentre prospective cohort study in China.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To assess whether transanal drainage tubes (TDT) protect against anastomotic leakage (AL) in patients without diverting stomas (DS) after laparoscopic anterior rectal resection (LAR). In the TDT group, after anastomosis of the sigmoid colon to the rectum, a 32F silicone tube was inserted through the anus with the tip of the tube exceeding the anastomosis by more than 5 cm. The tube was secured around the anus with a skin suture and a drainage bag was attached. It was left in place for 3-5 days postoperatively in the TDT group. In the No-TDT group, no transanal silicone tube drainage was used after the anastomosis. A total of 927 patients (620 in the no-TDT group and 307 in the TDT group) were included in the analysis, and a total of 50 (5.4%) patients were observed to develop AL. After using propensity score matching (PSM) to reduce baseline feature imbalances between the two groups, there were 287 patients in both groups, and the mean retention time of TDT was (4.7 ± 1.2) d. The incidence of AL in the TDT group was significantly lower than that in the no-TDT group (3.8% vs. 8.0%, with a the incidence of AL in the TDT group was significantly lower than that in the non-TDT group (3.8% vs. 8.0%, P = 0.034), but the incidence of AL classification was similar (P = 0.709). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications and postoperative recovery. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that TDT was found to be an independent protective factor for postoperative AL (OR 0.437, 95% CI 0.207-0.923, P = 0.030). The elective use of TDT is a simple and effective protective measure for the prevention of AL in patients without stoma after LAR surgery, helping to reduce the probability of AL. This may be a potential alternative DS method for the appropriate population.
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.