ArticleAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2026
Safety and Efficacy of Pelvic Reinforcement Procedure for Preventing Postoperative Perineal Hernia After Robotic Abdominoperineal Resection: A Single-Center, Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Annals of gastroenterological surgery, 2026. 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.
- Laparoscopic Peritoneal Flap Closure for Internal Hernia Associated with Colostomy: Two Case Reports.Surgical case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Few reports have described pelvic reinforcement procedure (PRP) to prevent perineal hernia (PH) in robotic abdominoperineal resection (Ro-APR) for rectal cancer. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of PRP in Ro-APR. Methods: Patients who underwent Ro-APR for rectal cancer between January 2020 and June 2023 were retrospectively examined. PRP was performed as a prophylactic procedure for PH. Four types of PRP were performed depending on the case (closure of the levator ani muscles, the pelvic peritoneum with the uterus, the pelvic peritoneum, and the pelvic peritoneum with a bladder peritoneal flap). Background factors and surgical outcomes were compared between patients without PRP (PRP-) and with PRP (PRP+). Imaged PH was diagnosed using computed tomography 1 year postoperatively. Imaged PH with symptoms was defined as symptomatic PH. Results: We evaluated 81 patients, including 51 PRP- (63.0%) and 30 PRP+ (37.0%). There were no differences in the characteristics between the two groups. There was no significant difference in operative time between the two groups (358 min vs. 329 min, Conclusion: PRP in Ro-APR for rectal cancer can be safely performed and helps prevent PH.
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.