ArticleInternational wound journal2024
RETRACTED: Comparison of the risk of postoperative wound infection in patients with rectal cancer by laparoscopic versus open Hartmann's surgery.
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- RETRACTION: Comparison of the Risk of Postoperative Wound Infection in Patients With Rectal Cancer by Laparoscopic Versus Open Hartmann's Surgery.International wound journal · 2025Article
- RETRACTED: Comparison of the risk of postoperative wound infection in patients with rectal cancer by laparoscopic versus open Hartmann's surgery.International wound journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditional Hartmann surgery is used when the patient is in an acute case where it might not be safe to carry out a one-stage intestinal anastomosis. Laparoscopy has been extensively applied in the treatment of large intestine, which can significantly improve both short- and long-term outcomes. While randomized, controlled studies and reviews have shown that laparoscopy is superior to that of open-access colectomy, the impact of Hartmann's surgery on postoperative site infections has not been studied. The purpose of this study is to summarize the existing evidence to show that laparoscopy is better than open operation in the area of injury. Methods The Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Libraries were searched from the moment the database was created until November 2023. For binary results, the odds ratio was estimated, and a weighted average of consecutive results was calculated. Our findings indicate that there is a lower risk for SSIs after laparoscopic approach surgery than an open-access procedure (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.10, 0.69, p = 0.006); Laparoscopy was associated with a reduction in the risk of dying after surgery (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30, 0.84, p = 0.009); The operation time was not significantly different in open and laparoscope (MD, 12.23; 95% CI, -5.63, 30.09, p = 0.18); laparoscopy was used to lower the incidence of SSI after surgery and to lower the mortality rate after surgery than by open-access surgery. However, the time of operation did not differ significantly among the two methods. However, further controlled trials will need to be carried out to verify the results.
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.