ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2026
The revisional burden of colostomy: a temporal analysis of risk, patterns, and survival.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study analyzed patients who underwent colostomy revision to identify risk factors and complications, aiming to provide evidence-based recommendations for the guidelines. MATERIALS AND
methodsOf 339 colostomy patients treated between 2016 and 2023, 58 who underwent colostomy revision were designated as the study group and compared with 281 non-revision patients in the control group.
resultsOf the 339 patients, 58 (17.1%) underwent 78 revision procedures (mean: 1.34 revisions per patient). Early revisions (within 30 days) comprised 60.3% of all procedures (n = 47), primarily due to necrosis (38.3% of early revisions) and retraction (29.8% of early revisions). Late revisions (after 30 days) accounted for 39.7% (n = 31), mainly for parastomal hernia (25.8% of late revisions) and stenosis (19.4% of late revisions). Twenty patients (34.5%) required multiple revisions; the revision group had a higher mean age (66.1 ± 11.8 vs. 61.8 ± 12.1 years, p = 0.021), more females (53.4% vs. 38.0%, p = 0.045), and more emergency surgeries (58.6% vs. 40.5%, p = 0.003). Transverse colostomies had a higher revision rate (24.7%) than sigmoid colostomies (13.8%), p = 0.045.
conclusionColostomy revision is associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates. Advanced age, female sex, emergency surgery, and transverse colostomy were identified as independent risk factors. Early complications (necrosis and retraction) differ from late complications (hernias and stenosis). Many patients require multiple revisions, highlighting the need for tailored surgical strategies and updated guidelines to minimize the number of revisions and improve the outcomes.
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.