ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Subtotal colectomy with antiperistaltic caecorectal anastomosis versus total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis for refractory slow-transit constipation: a comparative analysis.
Article in Updates in 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In selected cases of slow-transit constipation (STC), total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (TC-IRA) remains the standard surgical treatment but is associated with heterogeneous outcomes and relevant functional sequelae. Subtotal colectomy with caecorectal anastomosis (SCCRA) has been proposed as an alternative approach aiming to preserve the ileocaecal junction and improve postoperative bowel function. A prospective bicentre cohort of patients undergoing minimally invasive SCCRA for refractory STC was analysed and compared with a retrospective cohort of patients undergoing TC-IRA. Primary outcome was change in PAC-QOL score at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included PAC-SYM, St Mark's incontinence score, bowel movement frequency, and postoperative outcomes. Histopathological findings from colectomy specimens in the SCCRA cohort were also evaluated. Eleven patients underwent SCCRA and 21 underwent TC-IRA. In the SCCRA cohort, PAC-QOL and PAC-SYM scores significantly improved at 6 months (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively), with bowel movements increasing from a median of 1 to 7 per week (p = 0.003), without deterioration in continence. One anastomotic leak required reoperation. Compared with SCCRA, TC-IRA patients had higher baseline disease burden (PAC-QOL 3.88 vs. 2.00, p < 0.001) and greater absolute improvement in PAC-QOL (Δ3.28 vs. 1.54, p < 0.001). However, TC-IRA was associated with significantly higher postoperative bowel frequency (21 vs. 7/week, p = 0.002). Operative time and baseline characteristics were comparable. Histopathological evaluation of the SCCRA cohort revealed a heterogeneous spectrum of pathological alterations. Minimally invasive SCCRA provides significant functional improvement while maintaining a more physiological bowel frequency. However, direct comparison with TC-IRA is limited by differences in baseline disease burden and study design, and these findings should be confirmed in prospective comparative studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42635704What 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.