ArticleBMC surgery2025
A comparison study of two fecal diversion methods based on novel intestinal stents for preventing anastomotic leakage after middle and lower rectal cancer surgery.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of two intestinal fecal diversion methods using novel stents to prevent anastomotic leakage after surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer, and to compare their advantages and disadvantages for clinical application.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 101 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical resection(LAR) for rectal cancer at Yongchuan Hospital from June 2021 to March 2024. Patients were divided into three groups: 26 in the ileum group (using terminal ileal stents) ,54 in the in situ group (using rectal in situ covered stents) and 21 in the control group. Preoperative, surgical, and postoperative data were compared among the three groups.
resultsNo significant differences were found in baseline characteristics, surgical data, or the occurrence of postoperative anastomotic leakage or other complications. The in situ group showed no statistically significant differences from the control group in the postoperative hospital stay(12.6 ± 3.7 vs. 11.4 ± 2.9days, p > 0.05 ), total cost of hospitalization (48903.58 ± 7094.14 vs. 82205.77 ± 12222.41yuan, p > 0.05). Moreover, the ileum group in these comparisons performed worse than the control group. After incorporating data related to stoma closure surgery, the in situ group and ileum group showed significant advantages in overall hospitalization costs(59085.88 ± 7460.79 vs. 48903.58 ± 7094.14 vs. 81418.32 ± 11186.78yuan, p < 0.05), and the in-situ group also had shorter overall hospital stay(17.6 ± 5.0 vs. 22.2 ± 4.0days, p < 0.05).
conclusionsBoth fecal diversion methods showed acceptable rates of postoperative anastomotic leakage and can avoid a second stoma closure surgery. The in situ covered stent method seemed better as it not only saved hospitalization time and costs but also made postoperative management simpler and more efficient.
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.