ArticleBMC surgery2025
Is colonic lavage an effective tool for left-sided colonic oncological emergencies?
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.
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.
- From Recognition to Prevention: Modern Approaches to Complication Reduction in Colorectal Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
The management of left-sided colonic oncological emergencies remains challenging, especially in choosing the optimal approach to control fecal contamination while minimizing surgical risks. This retrospective study evaluates intraoperative colonic lavage (IOCL) versus manual decompression (MD) in emergency left-sided colonic resections with primary anastomosis. Data from 70 patients who underwent emergency colorectal surgery at Pisa University Hospital between 2010 and 2022 were divided into two groups: IOCL (Group A, n = 23) and MD (Group B, n = 47). Primary endpoint was the rate of anastomotic leakage while secondary endpoints included incisional surgical site infections (SSI), overall morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Although IOCL significantly increased operative time (p < 0.0001), it was associated with a shorter ICU stay (p < 0.0001). No significant differences were observed between groups regarding anastomotic leakage, incisional SSI rates, overall morbidity, or LOS. These results align with previous studies suggesting that while IOCL may offer benefits in reducing ICU stays, it does not significantly impact overall morbidity or infection risk compared to MD. Our findings suggest that IOCL could be advantageous in selected, hemodynamically stable patients; however, further research is needed to confirm its efficacy. Given the similar morbidity and infection rates, MD remains a viable alternative. Future multicenter randomized studies could further clarify IOCL's clinical benefits in left-sided colonic emergencies, helping to establish guidelines for its use in routine practice.
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.