Observational studyInternational journal of colorectal disease2026
A single-center retrospective study of prophylactic loop ileostomies and transverse end colostomies after laparoscopic radical resection for rectal cancer: a comparison of safety and functional outcomes.
Observational study in International journal of colorectal disease, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the safety and functional outcomes of prophylactic loop ileostomy (LI) versus transverse end colostomy (TEC) after laparoscopic radical resection for rectal cancer.
methodsIn this single-center retrospective study, 171 patients requiring a prophylactic stoma were divided into LI (n = 93) and TEC (n = 78) groups. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and AL-related reoperation rates within 3 months.
resultsThe AL rate was comparable between groups (LI 2.2% vs TEC 1.3%, p = 1.0). However, all leaks in the LI group required reoperation, versus none in the TEC group. The overall complication rate was higher in the LI group (39% vs 15%, p < 0.05), driven mainly by electrolyte disturbances (32% vs 11%, p < 0.05). LI was associated with shorter operative times for both initial stoma creation and subsequent reversal (both p < 0.05). Among the 144 patients who underwent stoma reversal, incisional hernia occurred only in the LI group (4/78 vs 0/66, p = 0.12).
conclusionTEC is a non-inferior alternative associated with a lower reoperation risk for AL and fewer metabolic complications, whereas LI offers shorter operative times. The choice depends on weighing procedural efficiency against long-term stoma-related risks.
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.