ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2025
Comparison of drain displacement and complications between conventional drain insertion and extraperitoneal tunneling drain insertion following anterior or low anterior resection: a retrospective comparative cohort study.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 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.
- Extraperitoneal tunneling reduces intraperitoneal drain displacement in rectal cancer surgery: a single-center before-and-after comparative study.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Article
- Association between modified same-intercostal chest tube placement and acute postoperative pain after uniportal VATS lobectomy: an overlap weighted retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the effectiveness of the extraperitoneal tunneling (EPT) method for drain fixation compared to conventional drain insertion following (low) anterior resection (AR). Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 334 patients who underwent AR with an anastomotic height ≤15 cm from the anal verge at a single center between January 2020 and May 2024. In patients with permanent stoma formation, no drain insertions were excluded. Results: Of the 334 patients, 192 (57.5%) underwent drain insertion via the conventional method, while 142 (42.5%) underwent the EPT method. No drain-related complications were reported in either group. Drain displacement occurred in 81 patients (24.3%), with a significantly lower rate in the EPT group compared to the conventional group (2.8% Conclusion: This retrospective study suggests that the EPT method may be effective in securing drain tubes, potentially enhancing their clinical utility. Maintaining the drain in its original position could help reduce the need for additional surgical or interventional procedures in AL management.
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.