Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 263

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rectal Cancer Surgery With or Without Bowel Preparation: The French Greccar III Multicenter Single-Blinded Randomized Trial

Bretagnol, Frederic, Panis, Yves, Rullier, Eric, Rouanet, Philippe, Berdah, Stephane, Dousset, Bertrand, Portier, Guillaume, Benoist, Stephane, Chipponi, Jacques, Vicaut, Eric·2010·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

In Brief Objective: To assess with a single-blinded, multicenter, randomized trial, the postoperative results in patients undergoing sphincter-saving rectal resection for cancer without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP). Background: The collective evidence from literature strongly suggests that MBP, before elective colonic surgery, is of no benefit in terms of postoperative morbidity. Very few data and no randomized study are available for rectal surgery and preliminary results conclude toward the safety of rectal resection without MBP. Methods: From October 2007 to January 2009, patients scheduled for elective rectal cancer sphincter-saving resection were randomized to receive preoperative MBP (ie, retrograde enema and oral laxatives) or not. Primary endpoint was the overall 30-day morbidity rate. Secondary endpoints included mortality rate, anastomotic leakage rate, major morbidity rate (Dindo III or more), degree of discomfort for the patient, and hospital stay. Results: A total of 178 patients (103 men), including 89 in both groups (no-MBP and MBP groups), were included in the study. The overall and infectious morbidity rates were significantly higher in no-MBP versus MBP group, 44% versus 27%, P = 0.018, and 34% versus 16%, P = 0.005, respectively. Regarding both anastomotic leakage and major morbidity rates, there was no significant difference between no-MBP and MBP group: 19% versus 10% (P = 0.09) and 18% versus 11% (P = 0.69), respectively. Moderate or severe discomfort was reported by 40% of prepared patients. Mortality rate (1.1% vs 3.4%) and mean hospital stay (16 vs 14 days) did not differ significantly between both groups. Conclusions: This first randomized trial demonstrated that rectal cancer surgery without MBP was associated with higher risk of overall and infectious morbidity rates without any significant increase of anastomotic leakage rate. Thus, it suggests continuing to perform MBP before elective rectal resection for cancer. This study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00554892. Collective evidence from literature strongly demonstrated that elective colonic surgery without mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) was safe without compromising postoperative morbidity. By contrast, this first randomized study on rectal cancer suggests that rectal cancer surgery without MBP increased both overall and infectious morbidity rates.

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 · 10.1097/sla.0b013e3181fd8ea9

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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 263

Metadata

Authors
Bretagnol, F., Panis, Y., Rullier, E., Rouanet, P., Berdah, S., Dousset, B., Portier, G., Benoist, S., Chipponi, J., & Vicaut, E.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2010-11
Volume
252
Issue
5
Pages
863-868
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2034214658
Cited by
263
References
1
FWCI
7.55
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: Rectal Cancer Surgery With or Without Bowel Preparation: The French Greccar III Multicenter Single-Blinded Randomized Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181fd8ea9
The paper
Bretagnol, F., Panis, Y., Rullier, E., Rouanet, P., Berdah, S., Dousset, B., Portier, G., Benoist, S., Chipponi, J., & Vicaut, E. (2010). Rectal Cancer Surgery With or Without Bowel Preparation: The French Greccar III Multicenter Single-Blinded Randomized Trial. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181fd8ea9

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.