ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2024
Does one-stitch method of temporary ileostomy affect the stoma-related complications after laparoscopic low anterior resection in rectal cancer patients?
Article in European journal of medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of continuous single-layer and traditional interrupted suturing techniques in stoma surgery: a retrospective single-center study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Health education pathway for individuals with temporary enterostomies using patient journey mapping.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2025Article
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
purposeThis current study attempted to investigate whether one-stitch method (OM) of temporary ileostomy influenced the stoma-related complications after laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR).
methodsWe searched for eligible studies in four databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI from inception to July 20, 2023. Both surgical outcomes and stoma-related complications were compared between the OM group and the traditional method (TM) group. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was adopted for quality assessment. RevMan 5.4 was conducted for data analyzing.
resultsTotally 590 patients from six studies were enrolled in this study (272 patients in the OM group and 318 patients in the TM group). No significant difference was found in baseline information (P > 0.05). Patients in the OM group had shorter operative time in both the primary LLAR surgery (MD = - 17.73, 95%CI = - 25.65 to - 9.80, P < 0.01) and the stoma reversal surgery (MD = - 18.70, 95%CI = - 22.48 to -14.92, P < 0.01) than patients in the TM group. There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss of the primary LLAR surgery (MD = - 2.92, 95%CI = - 7.15 to 1.32, P = 0.18). Moreover, patients in the OM group had fewer stoma-related complications than patients in the TM group (OR = 0.55, 95%CI = 0.38 to 0.79, P < 0.01).
conclusionThe OM group had shorter operation time in both the primary LLAR surgery and the stoma reversal surgery than the TM group. Moreover, the OM group had less stoma-related complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.