ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2026
Extraperitoneal tunneling reduces intraperitoneal drain displacement in rectal cancer surgery: a single-center before-and-after comparative study.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAnastomotic leakage (AL) is a serious complication of rectal cancer surgery, and a properly positioned pelvic drain may aid early detection and conservative management; however, intraperitoneal drains frequently migrate. We evaluated whether extraperitoneal tunneling (EPT) of the pelvic drain reduces drain displacement compared with conventional intraperitoneal placement.
methodsThis single-center before-and-after comparative study enrolled adults with rectal cancer located within 15 cm of the anal verge who underwent elective radical resection between August 2021 and July 2024. Patients operated between August 2021 and December 2022 received conventional intraperitoneal drains (non-EPT group) and those operated between January 2023 and July 2024 received EPT drains (EPT group). The primary outcome was drain displacement (>3 cm from the anastomotic staple line) on postoperative day 2 plain radiograph. Secondary outcomes were AL, EPT-related complications, and the need for additional intervention. Multivariate logistic regression, propensity score matching (PSM), and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed.
resultsOf 228 patients, 111 received EPT and 117 received conventional drains. Drain displacement occurred in 5 of 111 EPT patients (4.5%) versus 55 of 117 non-EPT patients (47.0%; P<0.001). After multivariate adjustment, EPT was an independent protective factor (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.13; P<0.001). The protective association was robust across PSM (matched OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.18) and IPTW (OR, 0.05-0.06; both P<0.001). AL occurred in 6 patients (2.6%) without a significant between-group difference (EPT, 1.8% vs. non-EPT, 3.4%; Fisher exact, P=0.681). Operative time, overall complications, and EPT-related complications did not differ between groups.
conclusionIn this single-center before-and-after series, EPT was associated with a substantially lower rate of postoperative day 2 drain displacement after rectal cancer surgery.
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.