{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.043934426229508196, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02819672131147541, 'mean_word_length': 5.153225806451613, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Double-barreled Wet Colostomy Versus Separate Urinary and Fecal Diversion in Patients Undergoing Total Pelvic Exenteration: A Cohort Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND
The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine whether double-barreled wet colostomy (DBWC) provides similar urinary tract infection rates as separate urinary and fecal diversion (SUFD) in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration.


METHODS
The MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were systematically searched by two independent researchers. The primary endpoint was the urinary tract infection rate. The Mantel-Haenszel method with odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (OR (95%CI)) was used as an effect measure for dichotomous variables. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity among effect estimates was evaluated using I2 and Tau2.


RESULTS
Three observational studies that included a total of 257 patients (159 DBWC; 98 SUFD) were included after 14 potentially eligible records were screened. Pooled urinary tract infection rates were 1.9% (3/159) in DBWC and 6.1% (6/98) in SUFD. This difference was not statistically significant [OR (95%CI) = 0.27 (0.06, 1.19); p=0.08] with low among-study heterogeneity (I2=0%).


CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis did not find a significant difference in urinary tract infection rates between DBWC and SUFD in patients undergoing total pelvic exenteration. Further clinical studies will be required to further understand the pros and cons of these procedures.