SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2026
Early versus late closure of protective ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe optimal timing of protective ileostomy closure after rectal cancer surgery remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares early (EC) versus late closure (LC) and evaluates the associated risks and benefits.
methodsMedline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched for RCTs published up to May 2025 that compared EC (≤ 30 days after creation) with LC (≥ 12 weeks after creation) following rectal cancer surgery.
resultsNine RCTs including 387 patients (EC: 195, LC: 192) were analyzed. We found no significant difference between the two groups regarding intraoperative blood loss, operation time, length of hospital stay, overall postoperative morbidity, major complications, anastomotic leakage, readmission, perioperative mortality, administration of adjuvant chemotherapy, occurrence of LARS, and quality of life. However, the EC group showed a tendency toward better functional outcomes in terms of shorter time to first passage of flatus (p < 0.001). Additionally, one RCTs reported a significant, yet clinically irrelevant delay in initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in the EC group (p < 0.001). Two RCTs demonstrated a significant cost reduction in the EC group - lower costs of stoma bags over the treatment period (p < 0.001) and lower total cost at 12 months following the initial rectal resection (p < 0.001).
conclusionEC can be considered a safe and feasible alternative to LC in carefully selected patients. However, caution is required in treating high-risk patients, and further research is necessary in order to identify potential risk factors that may predict unfavorable outcomes.
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.