ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2025
Double-tube end ileostomy: an alternative to classical defunctioning stoma in rectal surgery.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compares the clinical benefits of double-tube end ileostomy versus traditional end ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 65 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical rectal cancer surgery with preventive ileostomy between March 2022 and December 2024 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University. Among these, 47 patients received traditional ileostomy, while 18 patients underwent double-tube ileostomy. The clinical characteristics and follow-up outcomes of the two groups were compared.
resultsBoth groups showed no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative bowel function recovery, or complication rates (P > 0.05). However, the double-tube ileostomy group had superior outcomes: average stoma creation time was 25.39 ± 2.85 min, postoperative hospital stays averaged 8.89 ± 2.30 days, and total hospitalization costs were 57,796.50 ± 5306.30 RMB, all significantly lower than in the traditional ileostomy group (P < 0.01). Complications were fewer in the double-tube group, with only one case of type A anastomotic leakage (5.56%) and no long-term complications following successful tube removal. By contrast, the traditional group had 4 cases of leakage (8.51%), and 16 patients experienced long-term complications, with only 40 (85.11%) achieving successful stoma closures. Furthermore, patients in the traditional group reported higher SCL-90 scores for somatization and sleep and eating problems (P < 0.05), indicating significant differences between the groups.
conclusionDouble-tube end ileostomy offers a safe and effective alternative to traditional methods, with shorter operative times, fewer secondary surgeries, and reduced physiological, psychological, and financial burdens on patients.
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.