ArticleBMC surgery2026
Prophylactic endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy in high-risk ultra-low rectal anastomoses: a retrospective comparative study of feasibility and clinical outcomes.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnastomotic leakage (AL) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality after ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR) for rectal cancer, when the anastomosis is located ≤ 5 cm from the anal verge, in patients with additionally risk factors. This study proposes the prophylactic endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy (pEVAT) as a feasible strategy that may reduce AL incidence and promote healing in this subgroup of patients.
methodsThirty-three patients multiple established risk factors for AL who underwent uLAR with a diverting stoma were retrospectively analyzed. Thirteen patients received pEVAT intraoperatively using a polyurethane sponge, while twenty patients served as the control group. The main outcomes included AL rate, secondary outcomes were anastomotic stenosis, other postoperative complications, length of hospital stay as well as stoma reversal.
resultsAnastomotic leakage occurred in 7.7% of patients receiving pEVAT versus 30% in the control group. Unadjusted risk estimation demonstrated lower odds of leakage in the pEVAT group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Anastomotic stenosis was also observed in 7.7% of the pEVAT group compared to 35% of controls. The stoma reversal rate was higher in the pEVAT group (76.9% vs. 55%). Mean hospital stay was shorter (26 vs. 36 days). No mortality occurred in the pEVAT group, and complications were limited.
conclusionProphylactic EVAT is a feasible and safe approach that may have a protective role against anastomotic complications in selected high-risk patients undergoing uLAR. Larger, prospective, and ideally randomized studies are required to clarify its clinical effect in this subgroup.
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.