Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing extraperitoneal and transperitoneal routes of colostomy-related complications

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies, median (25^th-75^th percentiles)

Ref.	Country	Year	Approach (open/lap)	Study design	Group EPC/TPC	Number of patients EPC/TPC	Follow-up month
Heiying et al[13]	China	2014	Lap	RCTs	EPC/TPC	18/18	17 (12-24)
Whittaker et al[14]	England	1976	Open	RS	EPC/TPC	89/162	-
Madoka et al[15]	Japan	2012	Lap	RS	EPC/TPC	22/15	23/14
Leroy et al[16]	Taiwan	2012	Lap	RS	EPC/TPC	12/10	22.25/36.3
Hino et al[17]	Japan	2017	Lap	RS	EPC/TPC	30/29	21 (2-95)
Xiao et al[18]	China	2023	Both	RS	EPC/TPC	103/202	17-46
Zhang et al[19]	China	2024	Lap	RS	EPC/TPC	37/37	36
Ota et al[20]	Japan	2022	Lap	RS	EPC/TPC	105/222	38.0/45.5
Xiao et al[21]	China	2022	Lap	RS	EPC/TPC	83/50	6
Wang et al[22]	China	2018	Lap	RS	EPC/TPC	108/123	24
Yao et al[23]	China	2023	Lap	RS	EPC/TPC	30/30	6
Wang et al[24]	China	2024	Lap	RS	EPC/TPC	37/46	32/28
Dong et al[25]	China	2012	Lap	RCTs	EPC/TPC	66/62	6-60
Marks et al[26]	United States	2005	Open	RS	EPC/TPC	37/190	60

Lap: Laparoscopic; RCTs: Randomized controlled trials; EPC: Extraperitoneal colostomy; TPC: Transperitoneal colostomy.