Research Article |
Gancho Kostov‡, Mladen Doykov§|, Rossen Dimov‡¶, Bozhidar Hristov#, Daniel Doykov#, Katya Doykova¤, Lyubomir Chervenkov¤, Lyuboslav Dimov«, Georgi Amaliev‡, Valentin Ivanov‡
|
Corresponding author: Gancho Kostov ( caspela@abv.bg ) © 2026 Gancho Kostov, Mladen Doykov, Rossen Dimov, Bozhidar Hristov, Daniel Doykov, Katya Doykova, Lyubomir Chervenkov, Lyuboslav Dimov, Georgi Amaliev, Valentin Ivanov.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Kostov G, Doykov M, Dimov R, Hristov B, Doykov D, Doykova K, Chervenkov L, Dimov L, Amaliev G, Ivanov V (2026) Risk factors for permanent stoma after low anterior resection. Folia Medica 68(4): e167932. https://doi.org/10.3897/folmed.68.e167932
|
 |
Abstract
Introduction: Postoperative anastomotic leakage is a serious complication in rectal surgery that affects quality of life, increases morbidity and mortality rates, and worsens oncologic outcomes. One of the methods that can minimize septic complications is a diverting ostomy. Although intended as temporary, approximately 20% of diverting stomas become permanent or are converted to end colostomies. Factors significantly increasing the risk of permanent stomas include advanced age, local recurrence, stoma-related complications, and impaired anal sphincter function caused by denervation during surgery or due to neo-adjuvant or adjuvant radiotherapy.
Aim: This study aimed to identify the risk factors that increase the possibility of temporary stoma becoming permanent after low anterior resection.
Materials and methods: For the described period, we reviewed a total of 418 histologically confirmed rectal cancer patients who underwent low anterior resection with temporary diverting ileostomy.
Results: Our study included 348 patients, of whom 324 (93.1%) had their stomas reversed. After a median follow-up of 50.4 months (range 6-106 months), 324 (93.1%) patients had temporary stomas and 24 (6.9%) had permanent ones. Of the 24 permanent stoma patients, there were 12 ileostomies (50.0%), 6 colostomies (25.0%), six patients with abdominoperineal resections (25.0%) due to total dehiscence of the anastomosis.
Conclusion: Neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemo and/or radiation therapy, local recurrence, and anastomotic leakage could be important risk factors for the stoma’s nonclosure or re-creation after primary closure in low rectal cancer patients. Surgeons should be more alert in the stoma closure of these risk patients.
Keywords
anastomotic leakage, low anterior resection, permanent stoma, temporary stoma
Introduction
Due to the evolution of surgical techniques and instruments, the development of circular staplers, total mesorectal excision, and preoperative chemoradiation, low anterior resection (LAR) has become a routine procedure in distal rectal cancer that allows anal sphincter preservation. Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains one of the most threatening complications after LAR.[
Aim
The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors that could transfer temporary stoma to a permanent one after low anterior resection.
Study design
The study was designed as a prospective, single-center analysis of patients with rectal cancer from the 1st of January 2017 until the 31st of May 2023. Preoperative screening and patient recruitment were performed in the Department of Gastroenterology and the Department of Surgery at Kaspela University Hospital in Plovdiv. For the described period, we reviewed a total of 418 histologically confirmed rectal cancer patients who underwent low anterior resection with a temporary diverting ileostomy. The exclusion criteria for patients were: 1) advanced disease with multiple liver or peritoneal metastases requiring subsequent palliative procedures; 2) emergency surgery necessitating ostomy creation in a Hartmann fashion; 3) recurrent rectal cancer following previous surgery; 4) patients with only radiologically demonstrated anastomotic leakage without clinical signs.
A total of 348 patients were enrolled in our analysis and divided into two groups: group A, the group of patients with temporary stomas, and group B, patients with permanent stomas (stoma re-creation after reversal and stoma non-reversal after diversion).
Every patient was diagnosed with rectal cancer through a colonoscopy, biopsy, and histological examination. Anastomotic complications included stricture, fistula, leakage, and the formation of a pelvic abscess. Leakage is defined as communication between the intraluminal and extraluminal compartments caused by a defect in the intestinal wall’s integrity at the anastomotic area, between the colon and rectum/anus, with clinical signs of peritonitis and radiological findings of extraluminal air, fistula, or intra-abdominal abscess.
In 2010, the International Rectal Cancer Research Group defined postoperative anastomotic leakage after surgical treatment of rectal cancer and further graded it as follows:
Grade A is defined as subclinical anastomotic leakage (also known as “imaging anastomotic leakage”) without clinical symptoms or a requirement for special treatment.
Grade B is characterized by abdominal pain, fever, and purulent or fecal-like drainage from the anus, drainage tube, or vagina (rectovaginal fistula); an increased white blood cell count and C-reactive protein concentration; and anastomotic leakage, requiring conservative treatment.
Grade C is characterized by peritonitis, sepsis, and other clinical manifestations of Grade B anastomotic leakage, which require secondary surgery. Following the above standards, patients who met any one of the following four criteria were determined to have anastomotic leakage in the present study: the drainage tube near the pelvic anastomosis drained intestinal contents or had a fecal odor; outflow of contrast agent was observed by digestive tract radiography, gas accumulation and intestinal wall discontinuity were found around the anastomosis site by computed tomography examination, or the anastomotic opening was confirmed by anal palpation using a finger. These findings were combined with other clinical evidence of anastomotic leakage, such as fever, chills, positive blood culture, or high leukocyte count.
Materials and methods
After mobilization, the length of the colon was grossly estimated, and, subsequently, the need to mobilize the splenic flexure was assessed. The inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) pedicle was isolated and doubly ligated. The inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) was also ligated. The bowel was subsequently transected at a level ensuring adequate blood supply to the remaining colon. A total mesorectal excision (TME) was undertaken for adequate oncologic resection. After identifying the sympathetic nerves over the pelvic brim, electrocautery was used to dissect in the posterior avascular, alveolar plane between the fascia propria of the rectum and the parietal fascia of the pelvic floor structures while the rectum was being retracted anteriorly. This procedure, when undertaken accurately, allows for the sparing of autonomic nerves as well as the surrounding pelvic structures and results in a smooth mesorectal specimen. Middle and distal rectal tumors require the removal of the entire mesorectum. Multiple studies have indicated that a 2 cm margin of the mucosa is likely more than adequate.
Mobilization of the rectum and the level of transection has been established. The mesorectum was divided with bipolar ligation. The rectal wall was transected using a stapling device, a thoraco-abdominal linear stapler, or an endo GIA stapler dependent on the width of the pelvis. The length of the proximal colon was then evaluated for the construction of a tension-free anastomosis. If more length was needed, a variety of maneuvers were employed. The size of the end-to-end anastomosis (EEA) stapler was decided by the caliber of the colon.
After completion of the anastomosis, anastomotic integrity was tested by an air leakage test. Patient withdrawal from the study was warranted if a primary leak of the anastomosis was identified intraoperatively. Each case with a primary leak after air insufflation underwent anastomotic repair and fecal diversion. An intra-abdominal drain was placed in the pelvis at the end of the procedure.
Patients with only radiologically demonstrated anastomotic leakage without clinical signs were excluded from the investigation.
The anal stricture was defined as the narrowing of the anastomotic area that requires invasive procedures such as dilation, manually or with a Hegar dilatator. Early anastomotic-related complications were those occurring within 3 months after surgery, while the others were classified as late.
Patients were followed up four times per year for the first two years after surgery and then two times for the next three years. A colon enema with water-soluble contrast and anoscopy or digital rectal exam was performed to determine and evaluate if abnormalities such as leakage or stricture were present.
Statistical methods
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation and were analyzed with SPSS version 22.0 statistical software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Comparison between the groups was made with the Pearson chi-squared test, Shapiro–Wilk test, or Fisher exact test for qualitative variables. Differences were considered statistically significant at p<0.05.
Results
There were 348 patients in our study, and 324 (93.1%) received a stoma reversal. The median period between primary surgery and stoma reversal was 3.5 months. After a median follow-up of 50.4 months (range 6‒106 months), 324 patients were confirmed to have had a temporary stoma, while 24 (6.9%) were found to have permanent stomas. Of the 24 permanent stoma patients, there were 12 ileostomies (50.0%), 6 colostomies (25.0%), and six patients with abdominoperineal resections (25.0%) due to total dehiscence of the anastomosis.
The characteristics of the temporary and permanent stoma groups are shown in Table
| Variable | Temporary stoma (n=324) | Permanent stoma (n=24) p-value | p-value |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Age, yrs | 0.483 | ||
| ≥65 | 114 (35.18) | 9 (37.5) | |
| <65 | 210 (64.82) | 15 (62.5) | |
| Sex | 0.254 | ||
| Male | 222 (68.5) | 15 (62.5) | |
| Female | 102 (31.5) | 9 (37.5) | |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 0.183 | ||
| <23 | 117 (36.11) | 12 (50.0) | |
| ≥23 | 207 (63.89) | 12 (50.0) | |
| ASA score | 1.000 | ||
| 1.2 | 315 (97.2) | 21 (87.5) | |
| 3 | 9 (2.8) | 3(12.5) | |
| Anal verge distance | 0.339 | ||
| >5 cm | 78 (24.1) | 3 (12.5) | |
| ≤5 cm | 246 (75.9) | 21 (87.5) | |
| TNM stage | 0.966 | ||
| I, II | 252 (77.8) | 21 (87.5) | |
| III | 72 (22.2) | 3 (12.5) | |
| Surgery | 0.604 | ||
| Conventional | 237 (73.1) | 18 (75.0) | |
| Laparoscopic | 87 (26.9) | 6 (25.0) | |
| Stoma | 1.000 | ||
| Diverting Ileostomy | 321 (99.08) | 18 (75) | |
| Colostomy | 3 (0.92) | 6 (25) | |
| Radiotherapy | 0.417 | ||
| Neoadjuvant | 261 (86.1) | 18 (75.0) | 0.143 |
| Adjuvant | 42 (23.9) | 6 (25.0) | 0.217 |
| Chemotherapy | 243 (89.0) | 3 (12.5) | 0.150 |
| Metastatic spread | 39 (12.0) | 3 (12.5) | 0.241 |
| Local recurrence | 45 (13.8) | 9 (37.5) | 0.001 |
| Anastomotic complications | 27 (8.4) | 12 (50.0) | 0.001 |
The risk factors for permanent stoma include anastomotic-related complications (p=0.001) and local recurrence (p=0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that the independent risk factors for permanent stomas were local recurrence [OR, 5.050; 95% (CI), 1.867‒13.659; p= 0.001] and anastomotic-related complications (OR, 4.369; 95% CI, 1.631‒11.701; p=0.001) The multivariate analysis revealed that sex, tumor-node-metastasis stage, and permanent stomas were independent prognostic factors for disease-free survival (Table
| Variable | Univariate OR (95% CI) | p-value | Multivariate OR (95% CI) | p-value |
| Age, yrs | 0.195 | 0.192 | ||
| ≥65 | 1 (referent) | 1 (referent) | ||
| <65 | 1.505 (0.811‒2.7950) | 1.513 (0.812‒2.818) | ||
| BMI, kg/m2 | 0.326 | |||
| <23 | 1 (referent) | |||
| ≥23 | 0.768 (0.455‒1.296) | |||
| Sex | 0.025 | 0.021 | ||
| Male | 1 (referent) | 1 (referent) | ||
| Female | 1.819 (1.077‒3.074) | 1.869 (1.101‒3.173) | ||
| Location from the anal verge | 0.274 | |||
| >5 cm | 1 (referent) | |||
| ≤5 cm | 1.464 (0.740‒2.899) | |||
| TNM stage | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| 0/I/II | 1 (referent) | 1 (referent) | ||
| III | 2.866 (1.695‒4.848) | 3.349 (1.956‒5.736) | ||
| ASA score | 0.280 | |||
| 1, 2 | 1 (referent) | |||
| 3 | 0.046 (0.000‒12.175) | |||
| Operation method | 0.510 | |||
| Open | 1 (referent) | |||
| Laparoscopy | 1.225 (0.670‒2.239) | |||
| Complications caused by leakage | 0.317 | |||
| Yes | 1.438 (0.706‒2.932) | |||
| No | 1 (referent) | |||
| Permanent stoma | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| Yes | 3.250 (1.801‒5.864) | 3.573 (1.963‒6.503) | ||
| No | 1 (referent) | 1 (referent) |
The characteristics of the patients who needed a permanent stoma, including stoma recreation after the reversal (stoma recreation group, n=12) and stoma non-reversal after diversion (stoma non-reversal group, n=12), are shown in Table
| Variable | Stoma recreation (n=12) | Permanent ostomy (n=12) | p-value |
| Age, yrs | 1.000 | ||
| ≥65 | 9 (0.75) | 9 (0.75) | |
| <65 | 3 (0.25) | 3 (0.25) | |
| Sex | 0.485 | ||
| Male | 6 (0.50.) | 9 (75.0) | |
| Female | 6 (0.50.) | 3 (25.0) | |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 0.183 | ||
| <23 | 9 (75.0) | 3(25.0) | |
| ≥23 | 3 (25.0) | 9 (75.0) | |
| ASA score | 1.000 | ||
| 1, 2 | 12 (100.0) | 9 (75.0) | |
| 3 | 3 (25.0) | ||
| Anal verge distance | 0.339 | ||
| >5 cm | 3 (25.0) | 3 (25.0) | |
| ≤5 cm | 9 (75.0) | 9 (75.0) | |
| TNM stage | 0.966 | ||
| I, II | 9 (75.0) | 9 (75.0) | |
| III | 3 (25.0) | 3 (25.0) | |
| Radiotherapy | 0.417 | ||
| Neoadjuvant | 9 (75.0) | 9 (75.0) | |
| Adjuvant | 3 (25.0) | 3 (25.0) | |
| Local recurrence | 3(25.0) | 9 (75.0) 0.001 | |
| Anastomotic complications | 9(75.0) | 3 (25.0) 0.001 |
The factors that lead to permanent stomas in our patients are compared in Table
Discussion
Diverting loop ileostomies have become a common procedure when low rectal anastomosis is performed. Some authors consider that ostomy creation can reduce morbidity and avoid early resurgery if a leak occurs, but it does not affect the leakage rate. Fecal diversion is also associated with complications in the early postoperative period, after hospital discharge, and the patients need another surgery for ostomy closure. Some stomas are never reversed or, after takedown, need re-stomy.[
In the present study, 3.44% of patients (12 of 116) had a permanent stoma, and the same percentage, 3.44 (12 of 116), had no reversals of diverting loop ileostomy. Local recurrence is one of the major factors of permanent stomas in rectal surgery. Few studies, Seo et al., Mala et al., and Junginger et al., reported that local recurrence is the main purpose for protective ostomies to become permanent.[
When we focused on the factors for ostomy recreation after its takedown, the results were the same. Lim et al. and Song et al. reported similar results, indicating that local recurrence is the main factor for requiring stoma recreation after stoma closure. They specifically reported that 10 of 18 patients (55.6%) with permanent stomas had stoma recreation due to local recurrence.[
Many authors try to identify risk factors to create a predictive score system and find out that advanced age, radiation therapy, poor anal function, and distant metastasis significantly increase the risk for a permanent stoma. Systematic reviews and analysis have reported that old age is one of the most significant factors for permanent stomas[
Some authors consider that chemo and/or radiation therapy is also important for permanent stomas due to the often association between neoadjuvant therapy and anastomotic-related complications[
The stoma takedown time is variable. Some surgeons reported a period between the first procedure and ostomy closure of 4‒5.6 months.[
Some scientists suppose that nearly 21% of the cases with no reversed stoma were due to physician-related reasons. This suggests that certain surgeons and oncologists prioritize tumor treatment over the patient’s quality of life.[
The limitations of our study include its non-randomized design and the small number of patients with a permanent stoma.
Conclusion
In conclusion, anastomotic leakage, local recurrence, and neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy could be important risk factors for the stoma’s nonclosure or re-creation in low rectal cancer patients. Surgeons should be more alert in the stoma closure of these risk patients. In addition, there are no clear criteria for protective stoma creation. Usually, this decision depends on surgeons’ personal preferences. Unfortunately, we did not evaluate anal function, which may be an important risk factor for permanent stomas. Future research and meta-analysis are needed to facilitate surgeons’ decisions in these “risky” patients.
References
- 1. Bordeianeou L, Maguire LH, Alavi K, et al. Sphincter-sparing surgery in patients with low-lying rectal cancer: techniques, oncologic outcomes, and functional results. J Gastrointest Surg 2014;18:1358–72.
- 2. Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W, et al. Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery 2010;147:339–51.
- 3. Leester B, Asztalos I, Polnyib C. Septic complications after low anterior rectal resection--is diverting stoma still justified? Acta Chir Iugosl 2002;49(2):67–71. doi: 10.2298/aci0202067l; PMID: 12587473.
- 4. Batistotti P, Montale A, Bruzzone M, et al. Protective ileostomy after low anterior resection for extraperitoneal rectal cancer: does the reversal surgery timing affect closure failure? Updates Surg 2023;75(7):1811–8. doi: 10.1007/s13304-023-01573-w; PMID: 37428410.
- 5. Ihnát P, Guňková P, Peteja M, et all. Diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: the high price of protection. Surg Endosc 2016;30(11):4809–16.
- 6. Wang Z, Guo Y, Li S, et al. What affects the selection of diverting ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery: a single-center retrospective study. BMC Surg 2024;24:30. doi: 10.1186/s12893-024-02316-3
- 7. Gadan S, Lindgren R, Floodeen H, et all. Reversal of defunctioning stoma following rectal cancer surgery: are we getting better? A population-based single center experience. ANZ J Surg 2019;89:403–7.
- 8. Głuszek S, Matykiewicz J. Closing a temporary stoma – the procedure tactics. Pol Przegl Chir 2022;94(6):71–6. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0015.7782
- 9. Miura T, Sakamoto Y, Morohashi H, et al. Risk factors for permanent stoma and incontinence quality of life after sphincter-preserving surgery for low rectal cancer without a diverting stoma. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2017;2(1):79–86. doi: 10.1002/ags3.12033; PMID: 29863122; PMCID: PMC5868869.
- 10. Mengual-Ballester M, García-Marín JA, Pellicer-Franco E, et al. Protective ileostomy: complications and mortality associated with its closure. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2012;104:350–4.
- 11. Coco C, Tondolo V, Amodio LE, et al. Role and morbidity of protective ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer: one centre experience and review of literature. J Clin Med 2023;12:7229. doi: 10.3390/jcm12237229
- 12. Zeman M, Czarnecki M, Chmielarz A, et al. Assessment of the risk of permanent stoma after low anterior resection in rectal cancer patients. World J Surg Oncol 2020;18:207.
- 13. Kim S, Kim MH, Oh JH, et al. Seoul Colorectal Research Group (SECOG). Predictors of permanent stoma creation in patients with mid or low rectal cancer: results of a multicenter cohort study with preoperative evaluation of anal function. Colorectal Dis 2020;22:399–407.
- 14. Munshi E, Lydrup ML, Buchwald P. Defunctioning stoma in anterior resection for rectal cancer does not impact anastomotic leakage: a national population-based cohort study. BMC Surg 2023;23:167. doi: 10.1186/s12893-023-01998-5
- 15. Chun LJ, Haigh PI, Tam MS, et al. Defunctioning loop ileostomy for pelvic anastomoses: predictors of morbidity and nonclosure. Dis Colon Rectum 2012;55:167–74.
- 16. Rutegård M, Häggström J, Back E, et al. Defunctioning loop ileostomy in anterior resection for rectal cancer and subsequent renal failure: a nationwide population-based study. BJS Open 2023;7(3):zrad010. doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad010; PMID: 37161674.
- 17. Dulk M, Smit M, Peeters KC, et al. A multivariate analysis of limiting factors for stoma reversal in patients with rectal cancer entered into the total mesorectal excision (TME) trial: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:297–303.
- 18. Seo SI, Yu CS, Kim GS, et al. Characteristics and risk factors associated with permanent stomas after sphincter-saving resection for rectal cancer. World J Surg 2013;37:2490–6.
- 19. Junginger T, Gönner U, Trinh TT, et al. Permanent stoma after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2010;53:1632–9.
- 20. Song O, Kim KH, Lee SY, et al. Risk factors of stoma re-creation after closure of diverting ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer who underwent low anterior resection or intersphincteric resection with loop ileostomy. Ann Surg Treat Res 2018;94(4):203–8. doi: 10.4174/astr.2018.94.4.203
- 21. Lim SW, Kim HJ, Kim CH, et al. Risk factors for permanent stoma after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2013;398:259–64.
- 22. Lindgren R, Hallböök O, Rutegård J, et all. What is the risk for a permanent stoma after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer? A six-year follow-up of a multicenter trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2011;54:41–7.
- 23. Back E, Häggström J, Holmgren K, et al. Permanent stoma rates after anterior resection for rectal cancer: risk prediction scoring using preoperative variables. British J Surg 2021;108(11):1388–95. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znab260
- 24. Pan HD, Peng YF, Wang L, et al. Risk factors for nonclosure of a temporary defunctioning ileostomy following anterior resection of rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2016;59:94–100.
- 25. Den Dulk M, Smit M, Peeters KC, et al. A multivariate analysis of limiting factors for stoma reversal in patients with rectal cancer entered into the total mesorectal excision (TME) trial: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:297-303.
- 26. Kuo CY, Lin YK, Wei PL, et al. Clinical assessment for non-reversal stoma and stoma re-creation after reversal surgery for patients with rectal cancer having undergoing sphincter-saving operation. Asian J Surg 2023;46(5):1944–50. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2022.09.107
- 27. Bailey CM, Wheeler JM, Birks M, et al. The incidence and causes of permanent stoma after anterior resection. Colorectal Dis 2003;5:331–4. doi: 10.1046/j.1463-1318.4.s1.1_78.x
- 28. Zeman M, Czarnecki M, Chmielarz A, et al. Assessment of the risk of permanent stoma after low anterior resection in rectal cancer patients. World J Surg Onc 2020;18:207 doi: 10.1186/s12957-020-01979-5
- 29. Ducey J, Kennedy AM, Linsell L, et al. Timing of neonatal stoma closure: a survey of health professional perspectives and current practice. Arch Dis Child 2022;107:448–50.
- 30. Werner JM, Kupke P, Ertl M, et al. Timing of closure of a protective loop-ileostomy can be crucial for restoration of a functional digestion. Front Surg 2022;9:821509. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.821509. PMID: 35419403;PMCID: PMC8999839.
- 31. Zhang L, Zheng W, Cui J, et all. Risk factors for nonclosure of defunctioning stoma and stoma-related complications among low rectal cancer patients after sphincter-preserving surgery. Chronic Dis Transl Med 2020;6(3):188–97. doi: 10.1016/j.cdtm.2020.02.004
Additional information
Ethical statement
- The authors declared that no clinical trials were used in the present study.
- The authors declared that no experiments on humans or human tissues were performed for the present study.
- The authors declared that informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
- This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Kaspela University Hospital in Plovdiv (IRB No: 2023-01-04).
- The authors declared that no experiments on animals were performed for the present study.
- The authors declared that no commercially available immortalized human and animal cell lines were used in the present study.
Conflict of interest
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) use
The authors accept full responsibility for the content of the manuscript, including the disclosure of any use of AI. No AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript.
Funding
No funding was reported.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: GK and RD; methodology: MD and DD; software: GA; validation: KK, KD, and ET; formal analysis: LC; investigation: MD and DD; resources: BH; data curation: VI; writing–original draft preparation: GK, LD; writing–review and editing: VI, MD, and BH; visualization: GA and LD; supervision: LC; project administration: VI and GK. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Author ORCIDs
Gancho Kostov https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5137-6903
Mladen Doykov https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7029-8397
Data availability
All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the main text.