Skip to main content
Download PDF

Does temporary ileostomy via specimen extraction site affect the short outcomes and complications after laparoscopic low anterior resection in rectal cancer patients? A propensity score matching analysis

BMC Surgery volume 22, Article number: 263 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the current study was to compare the outcomes of temporary stoma through the specimen extraction site (SSES) and stoma through a new site (SNS) after laparoscopic low anterior resection.

Methods

The rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection plus temporary ileostomy were recruited in a single clinical database from Jun 2013 to Jun 2020. The SSES group and the SNS group were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Results

A total of 257 rectal cancer patients were included in this study, there were 162 patients in the SSES group and 95 patients in the SNS group. After 1:1 ratio PSM, there was no difference in baseline information (p > 0.05). The SSES group had smaller intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.016 < 0.05), shorter operation time (p < 0.01) and shorter post-operative hospital stay (p = 0.021 < 0.05) than the SNS group before PSM. However, the SSES group shorter operation time (p = 0.006 < 0.05) than the SNS group after PSM, moreover, there was no significant difference in stoma-related complications (p > 0.05). In the multivariate analysis, longer operation time was an independent factor (p = 0.019 < 0.05, OR = 1.006, 95% CI = 1.001–1.011) for the stoma-related complications.

Conclusion

Based on the current evidence, the SSES group had smaller intraoperative blood loss, shorter operation time and shorter post-operative hospital stay before PSM, and shorter operation time after PSM. Therefore, SSES might be superior than SNS after laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer patients.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

According to the World Health Organization, cancer is the leading cause of death globally, with approximately 18.1 million new cases diagnosed each year, which is expected to increase to 24 million by 2035 [1]. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major public health problem worldwide which ranks the third most common cancers, with nearly 1.9 million new cases of CRC detected each year, and CRC is responsible for 916,000 deaths every year and is the second leading cause of cancer-related death [2,3,4,5].

CRC can be divided into rectal cancer and colon cancer. For patients with lower rectal cancer, temporary ileostomy is often performed to minimize the risk of anastomotic complications including leakage and re-operation after rectal resection [6,7,8]. Patients with temporary ileostomy have a lower risk of developing anastomotic leakage and peritonitis than patients without temporary ileostomy [9,10,11,12].

There were two methods in terms of the site of temporary ileostomy: temporary ileostomy through the specimen extraction site (SSES) and stoma through a new site (SNS) after laparoscopic low anterior resection. However, it remained controversial which site of temporary ileostomy was better [13,14,15,16,17]. Some studies reported there was no difference between SSES and SNS [17], however, other studies reported SSES was a better method [13,14,15]. Therefore, the purpose of the current study aims to compare the outcomes of temporary ileostomy through SSES and SNS after laparoscopic low anterior resection.

Methods

Patients

The rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection plus temporary ileostomy were recruited in a single clinical database from Jun 2013 to Jun 2020. The study was approved by the ethics committee of local institution (The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, 2021-519), and all patients signed informed consent forms. This study was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki as well.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Patients who were diagnosed with CRC and underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection plus temporary ileostomy were included in this study (n = 322). The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1, Patients with incomplete clinical medical data (n = 42); and 2, Plus other organs resection (n = 23). Finally, a total of 257 patients were included in this study. (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of patient selection

Full size image

Surgery management and Definitions

The tumor stage was diagnosed according to the AJCC 8th Edition [18]. The laparoscopic low anterior resection plus in temporary ileostomy was according to the principles of oncology, the positions of the five trocars were as follows: one trocar was punctured up the umbilicus, two trocars were punctured at left side of abdomen and the other two trocars were punctured at right side of abdomen. Placing a wound protector before specimen removal. Find the end of the ileum under laparoscopy (40 cm from the left temporary ileostomy and 20 cm from the right temporary ileostomy), and use absorbable sutures to suture the bowel with the peritoneum, the anterior sheath and the skin layer intermittently, then temporary ileostomy was performed. The temporary ileostomy was divided into two groups: SSES and SNS. The SSES group was defined as the temporary ileostomy was located at the specimen extraction site and the SNS group was defined as the temporary ileostomy was located at a new site. (Fig. 2) Postoperative complications were graded by the Clavien-Dindo classification [19], and the major complications were defined as ≥ grade III, which required surgery, endoscopy or radiological intervention.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The site of temporary ileostomy. a SSES; b SNS. SSES stoma through the specimen extraction site, SNS stoma through a new site

Full size image

Data collection

The clinical characteristics were collected in the inpatient system, outpatient system and telephone interviews. The baseline information included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking, drinking, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), coronary heart disease (CHD), pre-operative hemoglobin, pre-operative albumin, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, stoma formation (SSES and SNS) and tumor nodes metastasis (TNM) stage. The outcomes included intraoperative blood loss, operation time, post-operative hospital stay, post-operative overall complications, post-operative major complications and stoma-related complications (The time from laparoscopic low anterior resection plus in temporary ileostomy to stoma retraction).

PSM

To minimize the bias of baseline characteristics of the SSES group and the SNS group, PSM was conducted. Nearest neighbor matching was performed without replacement at a 1:1 ratio and a caliper width with a 0.2 standard deviation was specified. The matched baseline information was as follows: age, sex, BMI, drinking, smoking, T2DM, hypertension, CHD, pre-operative hemoglobin, pre-operative albumin, neoadjuvant chemoradiation and TNM stage.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables are expressed as the mean ± SD and independent-sample t test was used. Frequency variables are expressed as n (%), and Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used. The univariate logistic regression was conducted to find potential predictors for stoma-related complications, the p value < 0.1 and clinical important risk factors were included in the final multivariate logistic regression for independent risk factors. Data were analyzed using SPSS (version 22.0) statistical software. A bilateral p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patients

A total of 257 rectal cancer patients were included in this study, the rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection plus temporary ileostomy and no conversion occurred. The average age was 61.3 ± 10.8 years old. There were 163 (63.4%) males and 94 (36.6%) females. The other clinical characteristics were summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Clinical characteristics of rectal cancer patients
Full size table

Baseline characteristics before and after PSM

There were 162 patients in the SSES group and 95 patients in the SNS group. Baseline information including age, sex, BMI, smoking, drinking, hypertension, T2DM, CHD, pre-operative hemoglobin, pre-operative albumin and TNM stage were compared before and after 1:1 ratio PSM. The pre-operative albumin was 41.6 ± 4.7 g/L in the SSES group which was significantly higher than 40.3 ± 4.9 g/L in the SNS group (p = 0.041 < 0.05) before PSM. Therefore, PSM was conducted and there was no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05) in baseline information after PSM. (Table 2).

Table 2 Baseline characteristics before and after PSM
Full size table

Outcomes

The outcomes including intraoperative blood loss, operation time, post-operative hospital stay, post-operative overall complications, post-operative major complications and stoma-related complications (stoma edema, stoma prolapse, stoma necrosis, stoma bleeding, stoma stenosis, parastomal hernia and skin inflammation around the stoma) were compared before and after PSM. Although stoma complications occurred, no patients underwent reestablishment of stoma.

Before PSM, the intraoperative blood loss was 71.6 ± 67.9 mL in the SSES group which was smaller than 100.0 ± 119.2 mL in the SNS group (p = 0.016 < 0.05). The operation time was 235.5 ± 76.2 min in the SSES which was shorter than 274.7 ± 77.0 min in the SNS group (p < 0.01). The post-operative hospital stay was 8.0 ± 4.0 days in the SSES which was shorter than 9.5 ± 6.0 days in the SNS group (p = 0.021 < 0.05). There was no significant difference in stoma-related complications (p > 0.05).

After PSM, the SSES group had shorter operation time (p = 0.006 < 0.05) than the SNS group. There was no significant difference in stoma-related complications (p > 0.05). (Table 3).

Table 3 Outcomes before and after PSM
Full size table

Univariate and multivariate analysis of the stoma-related complications

Univariate analysis was conducted to find potential factors for the stoma-related complications, and we found that longer operation time was a potential factor (p = 0.038 < 0.05, OR = 1.005, 95% CI = 1.000–1.010) for the stoma-related complications. Furthermore, in the multivariate analysis, longer operation time was an independent factor (p = 0.019 < 0.05, OR = 1.006, 95% CI = 1.001–1.011). (Table 4).

Table 4 Univariate and multivariate analysis of the stoma-related complications
Full size table

Discussion

A total of 257 rectal cancer patients were included in this study, there were 162 patients in the SSES group and 95 patients in the SNS group. After 1:1 ratio PSM, there was no difference in baseline information. The SSES group had smaller intraoperative blood loss, shorter operation time and shorter post-operative hospital stay than the SNS group before PSM, and shorter operation time after PSM. However, there was no significant difference in stoma-related complications. In the multivariate analysis, longer operation time was an independent factor for stoma-related complications.

Anastomotic leakage remains a major problem after laparoscopic anterior resection, with an incidence of 1.4%–15.2% [20,21,22,23]. In some cases, anastomotic leakage could lead to devastating consequences including peritonitis, pelvic abscess, and rectovaginal fistula [24, 25]. Prophylactic stoma was often required after laparoscopic low rectal cancer surgery [7]. During the laparoscopic low rectal cancer surgery, a small incision was often required to remove the specimen and prophylactic stoma was made through the specimen extraction site or through a new site. Prophylactic stoma could reduce the occurrence of anastomotic leakage and reoperation [6,7,8].

We summarize the detailed viewpoints in Table 5 concerning the difference between SSES and SNS. Some studies reported that there was no statistically significant difference between the SSES group and SNS group in all stoma related complications [13, 14, 17]. However, Li W et al. [15] reported the SSES had group had a lower parastomal hernia rate. Karakayali FY et al. [16] reported the SNS group had lower parastomal hernia rate than the SSES group. As for other surgical outcomes including operation time, post-operative hospital stay, it remained controversial as well [13,14,15,16,17]. Therefore, it is important to analyze the surgical outcomes and stoma related complications elaborately. Furthermore, PSM was conducted to reduce the selection bias, which could benefit precise results when there was no difference in baseline information [26, 27].

Table 5 Previous studies reporting the difference between the SSES group and the SNS group
Full size table

In this study, we found that the SSES group had smaller intraoperative blood loss, shorter operation time and shorter post-operative hospital stay than the SNS group before PSM, and the SSES group had shorter operation time after PSM. These results were similar with previous studies [13,14,15,16], the possible reason was that the SSES group omitted the step of suturing the incision, which greatly reduced the operation time.

As for stoma-related complications, there was no significant difference between the SSES group and SNS group. Previous studies had controversial outcomes of parastomal hernia between the two groups [15, 16]. Our study indicated that the SSES group and SNS group had similar stoma-related complications.

Moreover, In this study, multivariate logistic regression was used for analyzing independent risk factors of stoma-related complications and we found that longer operation time was an independent predictor of stoma-related complications. The reason was unclear, but it might be related to the difficulty of surgery and the difficulty of stoma formation. We hypothesized that the stoma-related complications were mainly based on the the difficulty of stoma formation, however the baseline characteristics or stoma formation did not affect the outcomes. Therefore, cautious and skilled operative procedures were necessary for surgeons.

To our knowledge, this is the first study analyzing the difference between the SSES group and the SNS group using PSM. Furthermore, we conducted the multivariate logistic analysis to find independent predictive factors of stoma-related complications for the first time.

Our study had some limitations. First, this was a single retrospective study which might cause selection bias (SSES and SNS might not be randomly selected), therefore, we conducted PSM to minimize the difference of baseline information; Second, long-term survival outcomes were lacking; Third, the sample size in this study was relatively small, some parameters such as renal function and blood electrolytes after stoma formation were not analyzed; Fourth, the operation time of stoma formation was missing as well, and the site of the temporary ileostomy was not marked before surgery which might result in non-standardized stoma formation. Therefore, larger sample size with detailed information and long-term follow-up should be conducted in the following experiments.

In conclusion, based on the current evidence, the SSES group had smaller intraoperative blood loss, shorter operation time and shorter post-operative hospital stay before PSM, and shorter operation time after PSM. Therefore, SSES might be superior than SNS after laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer patients.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due [The database from our clinical center were relatively private] but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Latest global cancer data: cancer burden rises to 18.1 million new cases and 9.6 million cancer deaths in 2018: GLOBOCAN. 2018. https://www.who.int/cancer/PRGlobocanFinal.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2021.

  2. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Goding Sauer A, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(3):145–64. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Peng D, Liu XY, Cheng YX, et al. Improvement of diabetes mellitus after colorectal cancer surgery: a retrospective study of predictive factors for type 2 diabetes mellitus remission and overall survival. Front Oncol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.694997.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu XY, Kang B, Cheng YX, et al. The short-term and oncologic outcomes of younger VS older colorectal cancer patients undergoing primary surgery: a propensity score matching analysis. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-09246-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang L, Chen X, Liao C, et al. Early versus late closure of temporary ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Surg Today. 2021;51(4):463–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-020-02115-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Phan K, Oh L, Ctercteko G, et al. Does a stoma reduce the risk of anastomotic leak and need for re-operation following low anterior resection for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2019;10(2):179–87. https://doi.org/10.21037/jgo.2018.11.07.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Sharma A, Deeb AP, Rickles AS, et al. Closure of defunctioning loop ileostomy is associated with considerable morbidity. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(4):458–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12029.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sun Z, Zhao Y, Liu L, et al. Clinical outcomes of ileostomy closure before adjuvant chemotherapy after rectal cancer surgery: an observational study from a chinese center. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2021;13(2021):5592721. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5592721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Montedori A, Cirocchi R, Farinella E, et al. Covering ileo- or colostomy in anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006878.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Mrak K, Uranitsch S, Pedross F, et al. Diverting ileostomy versus no diversion after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Surgery. 2016;159(4):1129–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.11.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Efetov SK, Tulina IA, Kim VD, et al. Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery with rectal eversion and total extra-abdominal resection. Tech Coloproctol. 2019;23(9):899–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02058-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee KY, Park JW, Lee KY, et al. Safety of temporary ileostomy via specimen extraction site in rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):2316. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38790-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang P, Liang JW, Zhou HT, et al. Surgical specimen extraction via a prophylactic ileostomy procedure: a minimally invasive technique for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(1):104–11. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v24.i1.104.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Li W, Benlice C, Stocchi L, et al. Does stoma site specimen extraction increase postoperative ileostomy complication rates? Surg Endosc. 2017;31(9):3552–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5384-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Karakayali FY, Tezcaner T, Moray G. Specimen extraction from the defunctioning ileostomy site or Pfannenstiel incision during total laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015;25(5):380–5. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2014.0545.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yoo SB, Jeong SY, Lim SB, et al. Left-sided ileostomy at specimen extraction site in laparoscopic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23(1):22–5. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2012.0105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Weiser MR. AJCC 8th edition: colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(6):1454–5. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6462-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–96. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mrak K, Jagoditsch M, Eberl T, et al. Long-term quality of life in pouch patients compared with stoma patients following rectal cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13(12):e403–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02740.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Paun BC, Cassie S, MacLean AR, et al. Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2010;251(5):807–18. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181dae4ed.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bennis M, Parc Y, Lefevre JH, et al. Morbidity risk factors after low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision and coloanal anastomosis: a retrospective series of 483 patients. Ann Surg. 2012;255(3):504–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31824485c4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim CH, Lee J, Kwak HD, et al. Tailored treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer surgery according to the presence of a diverting stoma. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2020;99(3):171–9. https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2020.99.3.171.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Enomoto H, Ito M, Sasaki T, et al. Anastomosis-related complications after stapled anastomosis with reinforced sutures in transanal total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a retrospective single-center study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2022;65(2):246–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000002016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yang J, Luo Y, Tian T, et al. Effects of neoadjuvant radiotherapy on postoperative complications in rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. J Oncol. 2022;5(2022):8197701. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8197701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rubin DB, Thomas N. Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice. Biometrics. 1996;52(1):249–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cheng Y, Cheng YX, Liu XY, et al. The effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus on the short-term outcomes and prognosis of stage I-III colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Cancer Manag Res. 2022;13(14):205–14. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S347242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge all the authors whose publications are referred in our article.

Funding

This study was supported by Chongqing key diseases Research and Application Demonstration Program (Colorectal Cancer Prevention and Treatment Technology Research and Application Demonstration [No. 2019ZX003]).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China

    Dong Peng, Xiao-Yu Liu, Wei Tao, Hua Zhang, Zheng-Qiang Wei & Guang-Yan Ji

  2. Department of General Surgery, Qijiang District People’s Hospital, Chongqing, 401420, China

    Dong-Ling Yu

  3. Department of Clinical Nutrition, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China

    Bing Kang

Authors
  1. Dong Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dong-Ling Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiao-Yu Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wei Tao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bing Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hua Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Zheng-Qiang Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Guang-Yan Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to data collection and analysis, drafting or revising the manuscript, have agreed on the journal to which the manuscript will be submitted, gave final approval of the version to be published, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guang-Yan Ji.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the ethics committee of local institution (The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, 2021-519), and all patients signed informed consent. This study was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki as well.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peng, D., Yu, DL., Liu, XY. et al. Does temporary ileostomy via specimen extraction site affect the short outcomes and complications after laparoscopic low anterior resection in rectal cancer patients? A propensity score matching analysis. BMC Surg 22, 263 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01715-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01715-8

Keywords

BMC Surgery

ISSN: 1471-2482

Contact us