ArticleHealth science reports2025
Ghost Ileostomy Versus Protective Ileostomy in Rectal Cancer Followed by Low Anterior Resection: A Randomized Feasibility Trial.
Article in Health science reports, 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
Background: Anastomotic leakage remains a serious concern in rectal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by low anterior resection (LAR). To mitigate this risk, protective ileostomy (PI) is often employed; however, it carries its own complications and patient burden. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and clinical outcomes of ghost ileostomy (GI) as a potential alternative, aiming to reduce unnecessary stoma creation, related morbidity, readmission rates, and patient discomfort. Methods: In this randomized, non-inferiority feasibility trial, patients with rectal cancer who had received nCRT and were scheduled for LAR were enrolled. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment rate, retention, intervention adherence, procedural fidelity, and safety. Safety outcomes compared GI and PI regarding anastomotic leakage and failure, bowel obstruction, acute tubular necrosis (ATN), and readmissions due to complications (primary endpoint). Results: Eighty patients were randomized from 87 eligible participants, with a recruitment rate of 5.71 patients per site-month. GI was non-inferior to PI regarding overall complications and readmissions (one-tailed 90% CI; power > 80%) and also for obstruction and ATN (one-tailed 95% CI; power > 80%). However, the PI group had a significantly shorter initial hospital stay than the GI group ( Conclusion: This trial supports the feasibility of a definitive future study. GI may serve as a safe and effective alternative to PI in selected low-risk rectal cancer patients undergoing nCRT and LAR. Larger, multicenter trials are needed to validate these findings and further explore the clinical utility of GI.
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.