The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Influence of a defunctioning stoma on leakage rates after low colorectal anastomosis and colonic J pouch–anal anastomosis
Abstract
Background: Anal sphincter function is increasingly preserved following rectal excision for cancer and provides a better quality of life for patients than does a permanent colostomy. However, anastomotic complications may cause considerable morbidity and mortality. This retrospective study examined the incidence of anastomotic complications following two forms of reconstruction after resection for mid-rectal cancer: colonic pouch–anal anastomosis (CPAA) and low colorectal anastomosis (LCRA). Methods: Some 258 consecutive patients with mid-rectal cancers between 6 and 11 cm from the anal verge underwent proctectomy with mesorectal excision and either CPAA or LCRA. The incidence of clinical and radiological leaks was determined in these patients who were considered in three groups: LCRA (defunctioning stoma), LCRA (no defunctioning stoma) and CPAA (all defunctioned). Results: In the LCRA group without a defunctioning stoma, a clinical leak occurred in 17·0 per cent, compared with two of 30 in the LCRA group with a defunctioning stoma. In the CPAA group a clinical leak occurred in 4·9 per cent of patients, which was not significantly different from the rate in those with a defunctioned LCRA. Patients with a non-defunctioned LCRA were more likely to suffer a clinical anastomotic leak (P=0·01), peritonitis (P=0·001) and require unscheduled reoperation (P=0·006) than those with a defunctioned LCRA and/or CPAA. Conclusion: The use of a protective defunctioning stoma is advocated in conjunction with LCRAs.
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
Cited by
Matthiessen, P., Hallböök, O., Rutegård, J., Simert, G., & Sjödahl, R. (2007) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3180603024 · Cited by 1,123
Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer
Peeters, K. C. M. J., Tollenaar, R. A. E. M., Marijnen, C. A. M., Klein Kranenbarg, E., Steup, W. H., Wiggers, T., Rutten, H. J., & van de Velde, C. J. H. (2005) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.4806 · Cited by 659
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Defunctioning Stoma in Low Rectal Cancer Surgery
Hüser, N., Michalski, C. W., Erkan, M., Schuster, T., Rosenberg, R., Kleeff, J., & Friess, H. (2008) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e318176bf65 · Cited by 616
Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer
Tan, W. S., Tang, C. L., Shi, L., & Eu, K. W. (2009) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.6594 · Cited by 478
The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events
Bruce, J., Russell, E. M., Mollison, J., & Krukowski, Z. H. (2001) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta5220 · Cited by 361
Metadata
- Authors
- Dehni, N., Schlegel, R. D., Cunningham, C., Guiguet, M., Tiret, E., & Parc, R.
- Venue
- Journal of British Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998-08-01
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1114-1117
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2028842348
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.66
- 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: Influence of a defunctioning stoma on leakage rates after low colorectal anastomosis and colonic J pouch–anal anastomosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00790.x
- The paper
- Dehni, N., Schlegel, R. D., Cunningham, C., Guiguet, M., Tiret, E., & Parc, R. (1998). Influence of a defunctioning stoma on leakage rates after low colorectal anastomosis and colonic J pouch–anal anastomosis. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00790.x
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.