The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage After Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk factors for anastomotic leak (AL) after anterior resection have been evaluated in several studies and remain controversial as the findings are often inconsistent or inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the risk factors for AL after anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2006 to 2009. PATIENTS: A total of 72 055 patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective anterior resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To build a predictive model for AL using demographic characteristics and preadmission comorbidities, the lasso algorithm for logistic regression was used to select variables most predictive of AL. RESULTS: The AL rate was 13.68%. The AL group had higher mortality vs the non-AL group (1.78% vs 0.74%). Hospital length of stay and cost were significantly higher in the AL group. Laparoscopic and open resections with a diverting stoma had a higher incidence of AL than those without a stoma (15.97% vs 13.25%). Multivariate analysis revealed that weight loss and malnutrition, fluid and electrolyte disorders, male sex, and stoma placement were associated with a higher risk of AL. The use of laparoscopy was associated with a lower risk of AL. Postoperative ileus, wound infection, respiratory/renal failure, urinary tract infection, pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, and myocardial infarction were independently associated with AL. CONCLUSIONS: Anastomotic leak after anterior resection increased mortality rates and health care costs. Weight loss and malnutrition, fluid and electrolyte disorders, male sex, and stoma placement independently increased the risk of leak. Laparoscopy independently decreased the risk of leak. Further studies are needed to delineate the significance of these findings.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso
Tibshirani, R. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · Cited by 51,482
Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.
Elixhauser, A., Steiner, C., Harris, D. R., & Coffey, R. M. (1998) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199801000-00004 · Cited by 9,921
Matthiessen, P., Hallböök, O., Rutegård, J., Simert, G., & Sjödahl, R. (2007) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3180603024 · Cited by 1,123
Cited by
Jafari, M. D., Wexner, S. D., Martz, J. E., McLemore, E. C., Margolin, D. A., Sherwinter, D. A., Lee, S. W., Senagore, A. J., Phelan, M. J., & Stamos, M. J. (2015) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.09.015 · Cited by 560
Self-citationPommergaard, H. ‐., Gessler, B., Burcharth, J., Angenete, E., Haglind, E., & Rosenberg, J. (2014) · Colorectal Disease · doi:10.1111/codi.12618 · Cited by 253
Metadata
- Authors
- Kang, C. Y., Halabi, W. J., Chaudhry, O. O., Nguyen, V., Pigazzi, A., Carmichael, J. C., Mills, S., & Stamos, M. J.
- Venue
- JAMA Surgery
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2013-01-01
- Volume
- 148
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 65
- ISSN
- 2168-6254 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2053969737
- Cited by
- 422
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage After Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/2013.jamasurg.2
- The paper
- Kang, C. Y., Halabi, W. J., Chaudhry, O. O., Nguyen, V., Pigazzi, A., Carmichael, J. C., Mills, S., & Stamos, M. J. (2013). Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage After Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer. JAMA Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/2013.jamasurg.2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.