Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41026509›Full record

Trial reportBJS open2025

Postoperative complications in Hartmann's procedure versus intersphincteric abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer: randomized clinical trial (HAPIrect).

Maziar Nikberg, Viktor Åkerlund, Torbjörn Swartling, Pamela Buchwald, Kenneth Smedh, HAPIrect Collaborative Study Group

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01995396 (Hartmanns Procedure or Abdominoperineal Excision With Intersphincteric Dissection in Rectal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01995396 naterminatednot on this map

Hartmanns Procedure or Abdominoperineal Excision With Intersphincteric Dissection in Rectal Cancer: a Randomized Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorRegion VästmanlandRan2014 to 2021Enrolled164ConditionsRectal Cancer, Sphincter Ani Incontinence, Other Diagnoses, Comorbidities, and ComplicationsArmsAPE with intersphincteric dissection, Hartmann´s procedure
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Maziar NikbergDepartment of Surgery, Västmanland's Hospital Västerås, Västerås, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-5949-3810
Viktor ÅkerlundDepartment of Surgery, Västmanland's Hospital Västerås, Västerås, Sweden.ORCID 0009-0002-4260-6214
Torbjörn SwartlingDepartment of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Östra, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Pamela BuchwaldDepartment of Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Kenneth SmedhDepartment of Surgery, Västmanland's Hospital Västerås, Västerås, Sweden.
HAPIrect Collaborative Study Group

Funding

Centre for Clinical ResearchRFR-Regional Research Council Mid SwedenUppsala UniversityVästmanland Research Fund against Cancer
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn patients with rectal cancer, when it is not possible to restore bowel continuity with an anastomosis, the optimal surgical method is still a matter of debate. The aim of this trial was to determine 30-day postoperative surgical complication rates after Hartmann's procedure (HP) versus intersphincteric abdominoperineal excision (iAPE) in patients with rectal cancer who were not suitable for restorative surgery.

methodsThis multicentre randomized controlled trial (HAPIrect) was performed in Sweden and Finland between 2014 and 2021. Eligible patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum located ≥ 5 cm from the anal verge and deemed unsuitable for anterior resection with anastomosis were randomized (1:1) intraoperatively to either HP or iAPE. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative surgical complications. Secondary outcomes were major surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa), perineopelvic complications, and overall complications. Logistic regression in the intention-to-treat population was the primary method used to compare the surgical approaches.

resultsOf 194 eligible patients, 163 were randomized (80 patients to HP and 83 to iAPE). The study was closed before achieving the target accrual. The main reasons for not receiving an anastomosis were advanced age, co-morbidity, or poor anal sphincter function. Mean operating time in the HP and iAPE groups was 291 and 373 minutes, respectively. In the HP and iAPE groups, the surgical complication rate was 39% and 43%, respectively (odds ratio (OR) for HP 0.83; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 0.44 to 1.54; P = 0.549) and the rate of major surgical complications was 14% and 11%, respectively (P = 0.573). Perineopelvic complications occurred in 21% and 30% of patients in the HP and iAPE groups, respectively (OR for HP 0.63; 95% c.i. 0.31 to 1.28; P = 0.197). The overall complication rate (including both medical and surgical complications) was 45% and 49% in the HP and iAPE groups, respectively (P = 0.574). In multivariable analysis adjusted for sex, preoperative radiotherapy, and surgical procedure, there was no statistically significant difference in surgical complications between the two groups.

conclusionAlthough the trial was underpowered and did not reach accrual, in randomized patients, both HP and iAPE are practicable surgical options for patients unsuitable for anastomosis. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01995396 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaPostoperative ComplicationsProctectomyRectal NeoplasmsAgedAnal CanalAnastomosis, SurgicalFemaleFinlandHumansMaleMiddle AgedSwedenlower gastrointestinal surgery

Identifiers

PMID41026509
PMCPMC12482908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.