ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Comparing the safety and efficacy of virtual ileostomy versus diverting ileostomy in patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a propensity-matched study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiverting ileostomy (DI) reduces the clinical impact of anastomotic leakage but is associated with stoma-related complications, mandatory reversal, and substantial costs. We aim to compare the clinical outcomes of virtual ileostomy (VI) and DI.
methodsA single-center retrospective case-control propensity score-matched analysis was performed on patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted anterior resection for rectal cancer between September 2014 and January 2024.
resultsWe included 112 cases of VI and 500 cases of DI for propensity-matched analysis. After PSM, 111 well-balanced pairs were analyzed. The incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) was 15.3% (17/111) in the VI group and 9.9% (11/111) in the DI group, with no statistically significant difference observed (OR = 0.608, 95% CI [0.271, 1.366], P = 0.448). The overall complication burden, evaluated by the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) at 6 months postoperatively, was comparable between the VI and DI groups (median [IQR], 0 [0, 20.9] vs. 0 [0, 22.6]; P = 0.087). However, the VI approach avoided formal stoma creation in 84.7% of selected patients and associated with lower total costs (median [IQR], 54,579 [49,264-74,552] vs. 96,925 [76,530-113,207] CNY; P < 0.001) and postoperative length of stay (median [IQR], 9.0 [8.0, 11.0] vs. 18.0 [14.0, 24.0]; P < 0.001).
conclusionsIn carefully selected patients, VI avoided the need for DI in 84.7% of patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted anterior resection. Additionally, there was no significant difference in anastomotic leakage or 6-month complication burden. Moreover, VI was associated with advantages in terms of lower costs, lower rate of scheduled secondary operations and shorter hospital stay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42566006What 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.