ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2025
Prophylactic ileostomy vs. nonprophylactic ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer (PILLAR): a prospective, multicenter, cohort study in china.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe role of prophylactic ileostomy and its potential to reduce the risk of postoperative complications such as anastomotic leakage remains unclear.
methodsThe PILLAR study (2018-2020, China, 17 centers) prospectively compared prophylactic ileostomy (PI) versus nonprophylactic ileostomy (NPI) in patients undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was the anastomotic leakage rate. Secondary endpoints included postoperative complications, leakage management/outcomes, and leakage-associated risk factors.
resultsA prospective study was conducted to gather data from 728 patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer, 192 (26.4%) of whom underwent PI. Seven cases of anastomotic leakage were observed in the PI group (3.6%) and 25 cases were observed in the NPI group (4.7%). Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic leakage between the two groups. Moreover, the total complication rates were 17.2% in the PI group and 10.3% in the NPI group (P = 0.012). However, the patients with anastomotic leakage in the NPI group had more severe abdominal infections, as evidenced by the C-reactive protein (CRP) values on postoperative day 5 (184.1 ± 72.2 mg/L and 77.2 ± 17.0 mg/L in the NPI and PI groups, respectively) (P<0.001). Patients' postoperative procalcitonin (PCT) values similarly support this conclusion. Notably, despite this difference in infection severity, there was no statistically significant difference in the treatment or outcomes of patients with anastomotic leakage in either group. Furthermore, male sex and CRP levels on the fifth postoperative day are identified as independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage.
conclusionsPI may have failed to decrease the incidence of anastomotic leakage in patients who underwent laparoscopic low-anterior resection for rectal cancer. Given the higher complication rate associated with PI, its use as a preventive measure for patients at risk of anastomotic leakage should be carefully considered.
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.