Table 1 Basic characters of literatures
From: The efficacy of ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis
Study | Karahasanoglu | Skrovina | Huang | Mari | Ihnat | Zanguie | Shimizu | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | 2011 | 2011 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2018 | 2020 | |
Country | Turkey | Slovakia | China | Italy | Czech | Iran | Japan | |
NOS/JADAD | 6 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 6 | |
Type | CS | CS | CS | RCT | CS | CS | CS | |
Patients (N) | Ileostomy | 23 | 50 | 60 | 55 | 78 | 75 | 226 |
No ileostomy | 54 | 64 | 60 | 52 | 73 | 31 | 191 | |
Age (mean) | Ileostomy | 59 | 63 | 61 | 71 | 63 | 52 | 62 |
No ileostomy | 61 | 63 | 61 | 69 | 64 | 63 | ||
Male | Ileostomy | 15 | 36 | 34 | 26 | 50 | 92 | 174 |
No lleostomy | 25 | 37 | 34 | 27 | 28 | 101 | ||
Female | Ileostomy | 8 | 14 | 26 | 29 | 43 | 63 | 52 |
No lleostomy | 29 | 27 | 26 | 25 | 30 | 90 | ||
Anastomotic leakage | Ileostomy | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 19 |
No lleostomy | 3 | 11 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 19 | |
Postoperative hospital stay (day) | Ileostomy | NA | NA | 7.4±1.1 | 6.3±1.6 | 11.3±8.5 | NA | 13.5±12.4 |
No lleostomy | 13.2±2.5 | 6.6±1.7 | 8.1±6.9 | 10.8±12.5 | ||||
Reoperation | Ileostomy | NA | 1 | NA | 1 | NA | NA | 1 |
No lleostomy | 6 | 3 | 0 | |||||
Wound infection | Ileostomy | 2 | NA | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA |
No lleostomy | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||
Operation time (min) | Ileostomy | NA | NA | 156.3±10.6 | 185±32 | NA | NA | 263±65.6 |
No lleostomy | 155.3±11.7 | 186±47 | 220.4±60.1 | |||||