<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>27(12)</volume><submitter>Walsh R</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Anastomotic leak (AL) following rectal cancer resection significantly increases the clinical care, risks morbidity and mortality and impairs oncological outcomes. AL management is not standardised. This systematic review and pooled analysis evaluated the comparative efficacy of the various reported strategies.&lt;h4>Method&lt;/h4>After protocol generation with AMSTAR2, a systematic search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed and SCOPUS. Primary and secondary outcome measures were pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird method with 95% confidence intervals, I&lt;sup>2&lt;/sup> statistics for heterogeneity and Egger and Begg's testing for bias, defining success as resolution of pelvic sepsis and/or healing of AL.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Sixteen studies published between 2010 and 2024 comprising 7236 pat</pubmed_abstract><journal>Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland</journal><pagination>e70335</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12690630</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Management of anastomotic leak after elective anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and pooled analysis.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12690630</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Walsh R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ryan EJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cahill RA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Murphy E</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Management of anastomotic leak after elective anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and pooled analysis.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Anastomotic leak (AL) following rectal cancer resection significantly increases the clinical care, risks morbidity and mortality and impairs oncological outcomes. AL management is not standardised. This systematic review and pooled analysis evaluated the comparative efficacy of the various reported strategies.&lt;h4>Method&lt;/h4>After protocol generation with AMSTAR2, a systematic search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed and SCOPUS. Primary and secondary outcome measures were pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird method with 95% confidence intervals, I&lt;sup>2&lt;/sup> statistics for heterogeneity and Egger and Begg's testing for bias, defining success as resolution of pelvic sepsis and/or healing of AL.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Sixteen studies published between 2010 and 2024 comprising 7236 pat</description><dates><release>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2025 Dec</publication><modification>2026-06-06T00:20:55.985Z</modification><creation>2026-05-23T03:14:12.522Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12690630</accession><cross_references><pubmed>41368952</pubmed><doi>10.1111/codi.70335</doi></cross_references></HashMap>