ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Optimal timing of ileostomy closure after rectal surgery: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Langenbeck's archives of 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTemporary ileostomy is commonly performed to protect rectal anastomosis after rectal surgery, yet the optimal timing of reversal remains unsettled. This study compared postoperative outcomes among early, intermediate, and late ileostomy closure and assessed the safety of early closure in selected patients.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were systematically searched from inception to June 21, 2026. Randomized controlled trials comparing different timing strategies for ileostomy closure were included. Closure timing was categorized according to the reported median or mean interval from primary surgery to reversal as early (≤ 35 days), intermediate (> 35 and ≤ 120 days), and late (> 120 days) based on the median or mean interval. The primary outcomes were total postoperative complications and major complications. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.
resultsTen randomized trials involving 871 patients (316 early, 312 intermediate, and 243 late) were included. Total postoperative complications were comparable among the three groups. Compared with intermediate closure, early closure was associated with higher risks of major complications (odds ratio [OR] 5.30, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.30-63.00) and wound complications (OR 4.80, 95%CrI 1.10-35.00), but a lower risk of stoma-related complications (OR 0.086, 95%CrI 0.0057-0.82). No significant differences were observed between early and late closure or between intermediate and late closure. In patients without clinical or radiological evidence of anastomotic leakage, total and major complication rates were similar across groups.
conclusionEarly ileostomy closure may be feasible and safe in carefully selected patients without evidence of anastomotic leakage, reducing stoma-related complications at the expense of increased wound complications.
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.