ArticleBMC surgery2026
Efficacy of anastomotic reinforcement suture in laparoscopic anterior resection for middle-low rectal cancer: a propensity-score-matched cohort study.
Article in BMC 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnastomotic leakage (AL) remains the most consequential complication limiting the outcome of laparoscopic anterior resection (LAR) for middle-low rectal cancer. We compared the efficacy of laparoscopic anastomotic reinforcement suture (LARS), transanal drainage tube (TDT) placement, diverting ileostomy and no prophylactic measure in reducing AL after LAR.
methodsConsecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic LAR for rectal cancer at our institution between January 2020 and January 2025 were retrospectively reviewed. According to the prophylactic measure used, patients were assigned to Group A (LARS), Group B (TDT), Group C (diverting ileostomy) or Group D (no prophylaxis). Propensity scores for this four-arm allocation were estimated by multinomial logistic regression on 16 baseline covariates, and sequential 1:1:1:1 nearest-neighbour matching on the logit of the propensity score was performed (caliper 0.20 × SD of the logit, without replacement); covariate balance was assessed by standardised mean differences (SMD < 0.10). Baseline characteristics, intra-operative variables and postoperative complications were compared before and after matching.
resultsAfter matching, 320 patients (80 per group) were included. Overall, 32 patients (10.0%) developed AL, with incidences of 2.5%, 13.8%, 8.8% and 15.0% in Groups A, B, C and D, respectively (P < 0.05). Left colic artery preservation and neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not associated with AL (P > 0.05). Anastomotic bleeding occurred in 0, 2, 2 and 4 patients, respectively (P > 0.05). No reoperation was required in Group A or C, whereas 5 (6.3%) and 8 (10.0%) patients in Groups B and D, respectively, underwent reoperation for grade C AL with severe symptoms (P < 0.05). Stoma-related complications occurred in 16/80 patients (20.0%) in Group C and were absent in the other three groups.
conclusionsIn this propensity-score-matched retrospective cohort, LARS was associated with a lower incidence of clinically relevant AL than no prophylactic measure, and with a complication profile comparable to that of diverting ileostomy but without stoma-related morbidity. TDT placement did not confer a measurable reduction in AL. Given the retrospective design and the possibility of residual treatment-allocation bias, these findings warrant confirmation in prospective randomised trials.
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.