ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Flap reconstruction in rectal resection and exenteration surgery: a single centre retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of flap reconstruction following extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) compared to abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the treatment of locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer, in the context of demonstrating the feasibility of performing ELAPE with flap reconstruction for rectal cancer in a large public (non-tertiary) hospital. The primary outcome was the assessment of postoperative complication rates to determine whether outcomes fell within acceptable standards for complex pelvic reconstruction. Secondary outcomes included flap-specific complications, operative parameters, postoperative length of stay, and correlations between flap complexity, operative duration, complication grade, and recovery metrics. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analysed 39 patients who underwent reconstructive ELAPE or APR at a secondary referral centre between April 2018 and August 2024. Data were collected from a prospectively maintained database and validated using clinical records and MDT meeting summaries. Patient demographics, surgical details, flap types, postoperative outcomes, and complication rates were evaluated. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics and correlation assessments. Results: Twenty-seven patients underwent ELAPE with flap reconstruction, utilizing vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM), inferior gluteal artery (IGAM), gracilis, and V-Y advancement flaps. Outcomes, including complication rates and length of hospital stay, were comparable to those reported by tertiary centres. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III and above) occurred in 33.3% of ELAPE cases, with flap-specific complications such as superficial infections (14.8%) and dehiscence requiring intervention (7.4%). Median length of stay for ELAPE was 18 days. No cases of complete flap failure were observed. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that ELAPE with flap reconstruction can be safely and effectively performed in a large public hospital setting, with outcomes comparable to high-volume tertiary centres. The findings underscore the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration in achieving high-quality surgical and reconstructive outcomes, and how these can be achieved in a large public hospital.
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.