ReviewCureus2025
Postoperative Outcomes of Double-Barreled Wet Colostomy Versus Ileal Conduit After Pelvic Exenteration: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ileal conduit (IC) remains the standard urinary diversion after pelvic exenteration, but double-barreled wet colostomy (DBWC) has regained interest as a viable alternative when simultaneous fecal diversion is required, as it allows the diversion of both urinary and digestive tracts through a single stoma, thereby simplifying postoperative management and reducing the overall functional burden on patients. To compare postoperative complications and operative outcomes of these two procedures, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published up to March 2025. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs), along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated using random-effects models, with heterogeneity assessed by the I² statistic, and analyses performed with R software, Version 4.4.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/). This review ultimately included five retrospective observational studies with 345 patients, of whom 195 (56.5%) underwent DBWC and 150 (43.4%) underwent IC. The analysis found no significant differences between DBWC and IC for several key outcomes, including urinary leak (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.13-1.05; p = 0.06), pyelonephritis (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.18-1.08; p = 0.07), uretero-enteric stenosis (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.21-4.61; p = 0.98), severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) (OR 1.54; 95% CI 0.70-3.39; p = 0.28), electrolyte disturbances (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.27-2.02; p = 0.55), hospital stay (MD -4.46 days; 95% CI -12.77 to 3.84; p = 0.29), operative time (MD 6.28 minutes; 95% CI -157.74 to 170.29; p = 0.94), and mortality (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.70; p = 0.30). Notably, sensitivity analysis revealed that DBWC was associated with a significantly lower risk of intestinal leak after the exclusion of one influential study (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.07-0.67; I² = 0%). In conclusion, the findings suggest that DBWC is a safe and feasible alternative to IC for urinary reconstruction after pelvic exenteration, with comparable postoperative outcomes.
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.