↓ Skip to main content

Early Closure of Defunctioning Loop Ileostomy: Is It Beneficial for the Patient? A Meta‐analysis

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Early Closure of Defunctioning Loop Ileostomy: Is It Beneficial for the Patient? A Meta‐analysis
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00268-018-4603-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Menahem, Jean Lubrano, Antoine Vallois, Arnaud Alves

Abstract

To perform a meta-analysis to answer the question, whether early closure (EC) of defunctioning loop ileostomy may be beneficial for patient as compared with late closure (LC) without exceeding the risk of surgical-related morbidity. Medline and the Cochrane Trials Register were searched for trials published up to November 2016 comparing EC (defined as ≤14 days from the index operation in which the ileostomy was performed) versus LC for stoma closure after rectal surgery. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0. Inclusion criteria MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall morbidity rate, anastomotic leakage rate, and wound infection rate within 90 days after elective surgery. Six studies were included and analyzed, yielding 570 patients (252 in EC group and 318 in LC). Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the overall morbidity rate between the EC and LC groups (OR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.22-1.78; P = 0.38). Despite a significant higher wound infection rate of stoma site (OR 3.83; 95% CI 2.14-6.86; P < 0.00001), meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the anastomotic leakage rate between the EC and LC groups (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.22-1.78; P = 0.38). Moreover, both stoma-related complications (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.24-0.86; P = 0.02) and small bowel obstruction rates (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.06-0.20; P < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the EC group than in the LC group, respectively. Heterogeneity of the studies CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that EC of a defunctioning loop ileostomy is effective and safe in careful selected patients without increasing overall postoperative complications. This promising strategy should be proposed in patients in order to reduce stoma-related complications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Master 8 16%
Other 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 20 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2018.
All research outputs
#5,177,722
of 25,603,577 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#753
of 4,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,875
of 345,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#17
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,603,577 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,596 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,282 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.