ArticleBMC surgery2025
A single-center retrospective cohort study on the effects of different surgical routes on complications after radical resection of low rectal cancer.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hope as a Therapeutic Resource: Systematic Evidence of its Impact on Mental, Physical, and Spiritual Health.Journal of religion and health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the impact of retromesenteric versus anterior mesenteric approaches on postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic radical resection for low rectal cancer.
methodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study included 157 patients (59 retromesenteric, 98 anterior mesenteric) treated between 2020 and 2023. Primary outcomes were postoperative inflammatory response, including C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) levels on days 1, 3, and 7. Secondary outcomes included complications and recovery indicators. Logistic regression adjusted for confounders.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable. On postoperative day 1, CRP (68.4 ± 12.3 vs. 85.2 ± 14.7 mg/L, P < 0.01) and PCT (0.45 ± 0.08 vs. 0.61 ± 0.10 ng/mL, P < 0.01) were significantly lower in the retromesenteric group, with similar trends on day 3. Anastomotic leakage was less frequent in the retromesenteric group (6.2% vs. 18.4%, P = 0.048), confirmed as an independent protective factor in multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR = 3.16, 95% CI: 1.009-9.894). No significant differences were observed in incisional infection, ileus, or intra-abdominal infection (P > 0.05). Time to first flatus was shorter in the retromesenteric group (48.6 ± 6.3 vs. 52.3 ± 7.1 h, P < 0.01), while hospital stay and 30-day readmission rates were similar.
conclusionThe retromesenteric approach is superior to the anterior mesenteric approach in reducing postoperative inflammatory reactions and the risk of anastomotic leakage, and promotes postoperative intestinal function recovery, which provides an important basis for the selection of surgical approaches for low rectal cancer.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.