SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2025
Laparoscopic versus open ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2025. 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
purposeThis study aims to compare laparoscopic versus open in ileostomy reversal techniques from multiple perspectives and to gain insight into the potential advantages and limitations of laparoscopic techniques and provide guidance on finding the best anastomosis for ileostomy reversal.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis has been pre-registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42025640754. A rigorous literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of overall postoperative complications, and the secondary outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss, and the length hospital stay.
resultsThis research included 11 studies with a total of 867 cases, showing that the laparoscopic surgery group had a significantly lower overall complication rate compared to the open surgery group (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.59, P < 0.00001). Further investigation of specific postoperative complications revealed that laparoscopic surgery significantly reduced the risk of bowel obstruction (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.18-0.83, P = 0.01) and wound infection (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.23-0.73, P = 0.003), with no significant difference observed for anastomotic leaks (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.11-1.43, P = 0.16). Although laparoscopic surgery required a longer operative time (P = 0.002), it resulted in significantly shorter hospital stays (P < 0.00001) and did not increase estimated blood loss (P = 0.50). In addition, both extracorporeal laparoscopic surgery and intracorporeal laparoscopic surgery can effectively reduce the occurrence of postoperative complications and shorten the length of hospital stay compared with open surgery.
conclusionLaparoscopic-assisted ileostomy closure (both intracorporeal and extracorporeal techniques) demonstrates significant clinical benefits, including reduced postoperative complication rates, shortened hospitalization duration, and optimized recovery trajectories.
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.