[A meta-analysis on risk factors of postoperative perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the risk factors of postoperative perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. METHODS: The databases of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WANFANG were searched for the studies of abdominoperineal resection up to October 2016. The quality of the included studies was assessed by using "Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias" and "the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale". The meta-analyses were performed with Review Manager 4.3 software. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials and 33 non-randomized controlled trials with 15 287 patients were enrolled. Meta-analyses showed that neoadjuvant radiotherapy (OR=2.55, 95%CI: 1.66 to 3.93, P<0.01) and obesity (OR=2.12, 95%CI: 1.05 to 4.26, P=0.04) significantly increased the morbidity of perineal wound complication after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer; omentoplasty(OR=0.30, 95%CI: 0.14 to 0.67, P=0.003), presacral space clysis (OR=0.11, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.94, P=0.04), abdominal drainage (OR=0.36, 95%CI: 0.21 to 0.63, P<0.01), perineal skin drainage(OR=41.72, 95%CI: 2.39 to 727.90, P=0.01) and local application of antibiotics (OR=0.17,95%CI: 0.07 to 0.40, P<0.01) significantly decreased the morbidity of perineal wound complication; however, extralevator abdominoperineal excision (OR=0.88, 95%CI: 0.57 to 1.35, P=0.56), laparoscopic procedure (OR=1.02, 95%CI: 0.47 to 2.21, P=0.96), biologic mesh reconstruction (OR=1.81, 95%CI: 0.95 to 3.46, P=0.07), myocutaneous flap reconstruction (OR=1.32, 95%CI: 0.18 to 9.91, P=0.79) and negative pressure drainage(OR=0.69, 95%CI: 0.35 to 1.34, P=0.27) had no influence on the healing of perineal wound. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous factors can affect the occurrence of perineal wound complication after abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. Due to the limitations of enrolled studies, multicenter large scale and high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to validate the current results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".