| Title |
Impact of anal decompression on anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00423-015-1336-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Soo Young Lee, Chang Hyun Kim, Young Jin Kim, Hyeong Rok Kim |
| Abstract |
The effectiveness of a transanal drainage tube for the prevention of anastomotic leakage (AL) is still uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the impact of anal decompression on AL after rectal cancer surgery. We retrospectively reviewed 536 rectal cancer patients who underwent low anterior resection without diverting stoma, with (n = 154) or without (n = 382) placing of a transanal drainage tube, between January 2005 and December 2014. Risk factors for AL were analyzed, and propensity score matching analysis was used to compensate for the differences in baseline characteristics. AL occurred in 50 (9.3 %) of the patients. Male sex (odds ratio [OR] 3.097, p = 0.005), high ASA score (OR 3.505, p = 0.025), and neoadjuvant chemoradiation (OR 2.506, p = 0.018) were independent predictors of AL on multivariable analysis. After propensity score matching, transanal drainage tube tended to lessen rates of grade C AL with definite peritonitis (1.9 vs. 5.8 %, p = 0.077), although there was no difference in the incidence of AL in patients with or without transanal drainage tubes (5.8 vs. 9.1 %, p = 0.278). Placement of a transanal drainage tube was not associated with a reduction in the total incidence of AL after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 19% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 12 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 61% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,290,425
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#871
of 1,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,086
of 266,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 266,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.