ArticleSurgical innovation2026
Clinical Safety and Effectiveness of COLO-BT™, an Intraluminal Fecal Diverting Device, as an Alternative to Defunctioning Ileostomy After Proctectomy.
Article in Surgical innovation, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of an intraluminal fecal diverting device (FDD), COLO-BT™ as an alternative to defunctioning ileostomy in patients who declined stoma formation following proctectomy.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent proctectomy followed by placement of an intraluminal FDD (COLO-BT™) as a temporary substitute for ileostomy at a single tertiary care center between September 2017 and September 2021. Safety was assessed based on postoperative and anastomotic complications, as well as endoscopic findings of colonic changes at the FDD fixation site. Effectiveness was evaluated by the rate of permanent stoma formation.ResultsAmong 91 patients, 8 (8.8%) required surgical re-intervention. Of these, five patients experienced anastomotic complications necessitating stoma formation: rectovaginal fistula (n = 2), delayed anastomotic leakage (n = 2), and rectourethral fistula (n = 1). One patient developed severe ileus requiring surgery, which also resulted in stoma formation. Overall, six patients (6.6%) underwent permanent stoma formation during a mean follow-up period of 24 months. Endoscopic follow-up identified colonic luminal deformities in 15 patients (16.5%), most of which were asymptomatic mucosal edema or erosion (n = 12). Three patients (3.3%) had non-symptomatic ulcers at the FDD fixation site. All luminal deformities had resolved on follow-up sigmoidoscopy performed 1 year later.ConclusionThe intraluminal FDD (COLO-BT™) may offer a feasible alternative to defunctioning ileostomy following proctectomy in selected patients, with acceptable rates of postoperative complications and permanent stoma formation. Further studies are needed to confirm long-term safety and efficacy.
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.