ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Ileostomy closure at an ambulatory surgery center: an initial assessment of feasibility and safety.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Safety and feasibility of early discharge (≤ 23 h) following loop ileostomy reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSame-day discharge (SDD) following bowel surgery is associated with reduced healthcare resource utilization. Performing these surgeries at ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) might further optimize efficiency. Ileostomy closure may be the ideal procedure for SDD at an ASC. We sought to investigate the feasibility and safety of ileostomy closures performed at an ASC.
methodsA retrospective review of adult patients undergoing elective ileostomy reversal planned with SDD at a single university-affiliated colorectal referral center (02/2020-07/2024) was conducted. Patients were stratified by site of operation: hospital or ASC. The primary outcomes were as follows: (1) safety, measured by 30-day complication rate, and (2) feasibility, defined as successful postoperative day (POD) 0 discharge without an emergency department (ED) visit or readmission within 72 h. Secondary outcomes included 30-day ED visits, readmissions, and length of stay on readmission. Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.
resultsSeventy-six patients met inclusion criteria (64 hospital, 12 ASC). The ASC cohort had a higher proportion of male patients; otherwise, baseline characteristics were comparable. Feasibility did not differ significantly between groups (ASC 67%vs. hospital 84%, p = 0.217); however, ED visits within 72 h were more frequent in the ASC group (33% vs. 8%, p = 0.030). There were no differences in the incidence of 30-day complications (ASC 41.7% vs. hospital 23.4%, p = 0.282) or ED visits (ASC 41.7% vs. hospital 19.0%, p = 0.161). The incidence of 30-day readmissions was higher in the ASC group (42% vs.13%, p = 0.027), but with no difference in median length of stay (3.5 [2.5-16.5] vs.3 [1-4], p = 0.484).
conclusionOur initial experience with SDD ileostomy closure performed at an ASC demonstrated inferior outcomes compared to a hospital setting. The ASC cohort was more likely to require early readmission, likely due to the logistical limitations. Stricter patient selection criteria may be necessary to optimize outcomes in the ASC setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40624427What 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.