Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 210

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Value of a Protective Stoma in Low Anterior Resections for Rectal Cancer

Marusch, Frank, Koch, Andreas, Schmidt, Uwe, Geiler, Sven, Dralle, Henning, Saeger, Hans-Detlev, Wolff, Stefanie, Nestler, Gerd, Pross, Matthias, Gastinger, Ingo, Lippert, Hans·2002·Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Anastomotic leakage is a major problem in colorectal surgery and in particular in operations for low rectal cancer. The present study investigates the question whether a protective stoma can reduce the (clinical and radiologic) anastomotic leakage rate and/or the rate of leakage requiring surgery. METHODS: The investigation took the form of a prospective multicenter study involving 75 German hospitals and was performed between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 1999. A comparison was made of the postoperative results of procedures performed with and those performed without a protective stoma in patients undergoing low anterior rectal resection. In addition, logistic regression using the target criteria, overall anastomotic leakage and anastomotic leakage requiring surgery, was applied. RESULTS: Among the 3,695 operations performed for carcinoma of the rectum or colon, 482 were low anterior resections. In 334 patients (69.3 percent) no protective stoma was constructed, whereas 148 (30.7 percent) received such protection. Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and body mass index were identical in both groups. In the group receiving a protective stoma, however, neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy was more common, the tumors were lower-and thus the total mesorectal excision rate higher, the intraoperative complication rate was higher, and the duration of the operation was longer. The differences were all significant. The major criterion (overall anastomotic leakage rate) was identical in the two groups, but the rate of leakage requiring surgery was significantly lower in patients receiving a protective stoma (p = 0.028). The logistic regression revealed that use of a protective stoma is a predictor of protection against anastomotic leakage requiring surgery. The distance of the tumor from the anal verge and the duration of the operation are further predictors. CONCLUSION: The particular benefit of a covering stoma is reduction in the rate of leaks requiring surgery and thus in the severe consequences of an anastomotic leakage.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10350-004-6384-9

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 210

Metadata

Authors
Marusch, F., Koch, A., Schmidt, U., Geiler, S., Dralle, H., Saeger, H.-D., Wolff, S., Nestler, G., Pross, M., Gastinger, I., & Lippert, H.
Venue
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
Published
2002-09
Volume
45
Issue
9
Pages
1164-1171
ISSN
0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2029243549
Cited by
210
References
0
FWCI
1.92
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: Value of a Protective Stoma in Low Anterior Resections for Rectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10350-004-6384-9
The paper
Marusch, F., Koch, A., Schmidt, U., Geiler, S., Dralle, H., Saeger, H.-D., Wolff, S., Nestler, G., Pross, M., Gastinger, I., & Lippert, H. (2002). Value of a Protective Stoma in Low Anterior Resections for Rectal Cancer. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-6384-9

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.