ReviewCureus2025
Prophylactic Pelvic Drainage of Extraperitoneal Rectal Anastomoses: A Friend or a Foe?
Review in Cureus, 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
The role of prophylactic drain placement after rectal resections with extraperitoneal anastomosis remains unclear and controversial. A systematic search was conducted using the PubMed database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing clinical outcomes of patients with drained and undrained extraperitoneal colorectal or coloanal anastomoses. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage (AL), whereas secondary outcomes included the impact of drainage on mortality, postoperative bowel obstruction, wound infection, reoperation rate, and length of hospital stay. Three RCTs and four CCTs that met the inclusion criteria were identified. Two RCTs were judged at a low risk of bias and one at unclear risk. Among CCTs, three were considered to be of fair and one of good methodological quality. Significant discrepancies were encountered among these studies in terms of study design, definition of endpoints, population characteristics, and several technical aspects that render patients' grouping for conclusion extraction at least demanding, if not unsafe. In conclusion, there is not sufficient evidence to support routine drainage after rectal surgery with extraperitoneal anastomosis, although drain insertion does not appear to increase postoperative morbidity.
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.