ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Selective non-diverting strategy after restorative rectal cancer surgery: a single-center experience combining optimized anastomotic technique and intensive surveillance.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
The role of routine diverting ileostomy after restorative rectal cancer surgery remains controversial. We evaluated a selective non-diverting strategy implemented together with technical modifications of the anastomosis and an intensified postoperative surveillance protocol. This retrospective single-center study included 300 patients who underwent restorative surgery for rectal cancer between 2017 and 2026. Patients were categorized according to reconstruction technique: end-to-end stapled colorectal anastomosis, side-to-end stapled colorectal anastomosis, or delayed coloanal anastomosis using the Turnbull-Cutait technique. The primary endpoint was clinically relevant anastomotic leakage, defined according to the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer classification as Grade B or C leakage. Fisher exact, chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used as appropriate; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for leakage rates. The cohort included 71 end-to-end, 171 side-to-end, and 58 delayed coloanal reconstructions. Clinically relevant leakage occurred in 8/71 patients after end-to-end anastomosis (11.3%, 95% CI 5.0-21.0), 4/171 after side-to-end anastomosis (2.3%, 95% CI 0.6-5.9), and 2/58 after delayed coloanal anastomosis (3.4%, 95% CI 0.4-11.9; p = 0.010). Among non-diverted stapled colorectal anastomoses, clinically relevant leakage was lower after side-to-end reconstruction than after end-to-end reconstruction (1/163 [0.6%] vs. 3/45 [6.7%], p = 0.032). In selected patients, a non-routine diversion strategy combined with optimized anastomotic configuration, routine splenic flexure mobilization when required, delayed coloanal reconstruction for ultra-low tumors, and intensive postoperative surveillance appears feasible. Because several technical and organizational changes were introduced simultaneously, these findings should not be interpreted as proving the independent safety of omitting diversion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42390785What 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.