ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Colostomy in patients with anorectal malformation with rectoperineal fistula or rectovestibular fistula: a single-center experience.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study summarizes the clinical characteristics of colostomy in children with anorectal malformation (ARM) with rectoperineal fistula (RPF) or rectovestibular fistula (RVF) to inform surgical decision-making.
methodsMedical records of children with RPF or RVF undergoing colostomy were retrospectively reviewed to analyze indications.
resultsAmong 761 rectoperineal fistula and 295 rectovestibular fistula patients, 124 received colostomy: 16 (2.1%) with RPF and 108 (36.6%) with RVF. Indications for colostomy in sixteen RPF were: nonvisible fistula with high Pouch-Perineum (P-P) distance (n = 5), prior colostomy elsewhere (n = 4), penile or scrotal fistula with high P-P distance (n = 2), high P-P distance alone (n = 2), perineal body fistula in a female (n = 1), failed intraoperative pouch identification (n = 1), and necrotizing enterocolitis (n = 1). For rectovestibular fistula (n = 108), indications included: treatment pre-2018 (n = 49, 45.4%), poor general condition or severe anomalies (n = 14, 12.9%), small fistula with persistent distension despite dilation (n = 13, 12.0%), failed prior repair on colostomy (n = 9, 8.3%), neonatal abdominal distension or defecation difficulty (n = 4, 3.7%), fistula near posterior commissure (n = 4, 3.7%), and tethered cord syndrome, reduction of neonatal wound complications, nonvisible fistula with high P-P distance, staged repair choice, or secondary megacolon (each 2.8%, n = 3).
conclusionsFor children with fistula at the penis or scrotum and high Pouch-Perineum distance, primary repair carries risks of rectal pouch misidentification and urethral injury. In rectoperineal fistula cases without a visible fistula and with a high Pouch-Perineum distance, colostomy is often unavoidable. A staged surgical procedure is recommended for patients with rectovestibular fistula in cases of poor general condition, severe concomitant congenital malformations, unresolved defecation difficulties following anal dilatation, or a fistula near the posterior commissure.
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.