Risk Factors Associated With Nonclosure of Defunctioning Stomas After Sphincter-Preserving Low Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Some patients receiving defunctioning stomas will never undergo stoma reversal, but it is difficult to preoperatively predict which patients will be affected. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to identify the risk factors associated with nonclosure of temporary stomas after sphincter-preserving low anterior resection for rectal cancer. DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library databases for all of the studies analyzing risk factors for nonclosure of defunctioning stomas. STUDY SELECTION: We only included articles published in English in this meta-analysis. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) original article with extractable data, 2) studies including only defunctioning stomas created after low anterior resection for rectal cancer, 3) studies with nonclosure rather than delayed closure as the main end point, and 4) studies analyzing risk factors for nonclosure. INTERVENTION: Defunctioning stomas were created after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stoma nonclosure was the only end point, and it included nonclosure and permanent stoma creation after primary stoma closure. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess methodologic quality of the studies, and risk ratios and 95% CIs were used to assess risk factors. RESULTS: Ten studies with 8568 patients were included. The nonclosure rate was 19% (95% CI, 13%-24%; p < 0.001; I= 96.2%). Three demographic factors were significantly associated with nonclosure: older age (risk ratio= 1.50 (95% CI, 1.12-2.02); p = 0.007; I= 39.3%), ASA score >2 (risk ratio = 1.66 (95% CI, 1.51-1.83); p < 0.001; I= 0%), and comorbidities (risk ratio = 1.58 (95% CI, 1.29-1.95); p < 0.001; I= 52.6%). Surgical complications (risk ratio = 1.89 (95% CI, 1.48-2.41); p < 0.001; I= 29.7%), postoperative anastomotic leakage (risk ratio = 3.39 (95% CI, 2.41-4.75); p < 0.001; I= 53.0%), stage IV tumor (risk ratio = 2.96 (95% CI, 1.73-5.09); p < 0.001; I= 88.1%), and local recurrence (risk ratio = 2.84 (95% CI, 2.11-3.83); p < 0.001; I= 6.8%) were strong clinical risk factors for nonclosure. Open surgery (risk ratio = 1.47 (95% CI, 1.01-2.15); p = 0.044; I= 63.6%) showed a borderline significant association with nonclosure. LIMITATIONS: Data on some risk factors could not be pooled because of the low number of studies. There was conspicuous heterogeneity between the included studies, so the pooled data were not absolutely free of exaggeration or influence. CONCLUSIONS: Older age, ASA score >2, comorbidities, open surgery, surgical complications, anastomotic leakage, stage IV tumor, and local recurrence are risk factors for nonclosure of defunctioning stomas after low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer, whereas tumor height, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy are not. Patients with these risk factors should be informed preoperatively of the possibility of nonreversal, and joint decision-making is preferred.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,012 | 0,061 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».