ArticleBJS open2025
Assessment of morbidity and predictors of wound complications following perineal wound closure after radical anorectal oncologic resection: retrospective cohort study.
Article in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the risk factors for perineal wound infection after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Flap reconstruction versus primary perineal closure after abdominoperineal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPerineal wound management after radical pelvic surgery is complex and diverse. This retrospective study evaluated surgical morbidity and predictors of wound complications associated with different perineal closure techniques.
methodsMedical records of patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection or pelvic exenteration followed by tissue flap reconstruction (TFR) or primary closure (PC) between 2012 and 2020 were reviewed. Postoperative morbidity, including wound dehiscence, infection, flap loss, and Clavien-Dindo complications, were assessed.
resultsIn all, 414 patients underwent surgery for rectal (364) or anal (50) malignancies, with 150 receiving TFR and 264 receiving PC; an omental flap was used in 81 patients who underwent PC. TFR was more commonly used in complex situations (for example exenteration, sacrectomy, vaginectomy, intraoperative radiation). Compared with PC, TFR was associated with higher 90-day rates of wound dehiscence (27 versus 11%; P < 0.001), wound infection (25 versus 14%; P < 0.001) and grade ≥III Clavien-Dindo complications (32 versus 17%; P = 0.001). Flap loss occurred in 2 patients (1%) who underwent TFR. No differences were observed among TFR subtypes, or between patients who underwent PC with and without an omental flap. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that anal cancer (odds ratio (OR) 5.24, 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 1.07 to 25.58; P = 0.041) and extralevator resection (OR 3.09, 95% c.i. 1.07 to 8.92; P = 0.037) were independent predictors of wound dehiscence, whereas vaginectomy was a predictor of wound dehiscence in the TFR subgroup (OR 17.9, 95% c.i. 1.05 to 304.73; P = 0.046).
conclusionTFR was associated with higher morbidity due to greater case complexity, but there were no difference in outcomes across flap subtypes. Anal cancer, extralevator resection, and vaginectomy were independent predictors of dehiscence. Omental flaps did not increase the risk of wound 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.