ArticleSurgical endoscopy2014
Single-port laparoscopic colorectal resections in obese patients are as safe and effective as conventional laparoscopy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term outcome of intracorporeal ileocolonic anastomosis in patients with visceral obesity.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of Early Results and Complications between Multi-and Single-Port Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Randomized Clinical Study.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2017Article
- Outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic colectomy surgery in obese patients: a case-matched study.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Review of 500 single incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery cases - Lessons learned.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- Laparoscopic versus open fecal diversion: does laparoscopy offer better outcomes in short term?Techniques in coloproctology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObese patients pose additional operative technical difficulties, and it is unclear if the outcomes of single-port colorectal surgery are equivalent to those of conventional laparoscopy in such patients. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative variables and short-term outcomes of single-port versus conventional laparoscopy in obese patients undergoing colorectal surgery. PATIENTS AND
methodsObese patients (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) undergoing single-port laparoscopic colorectal resections between March 2009 and September 2012 were case matched 1:1 with obese counterparts undergoing conventional (multi-port) laparoscopic surgery based on diagnosis and operation type.
resultsThirty-seven patients who underwent single-port surgery were matched with 37 conventional laparoscopic counterparts. Male gender predominated in the single-port group (26 vs 15, p = 0.02). The number of patients with a history of previous abdominal operations (17 vs 13, p = 0.48) and ASA score (3 vs 2, p = 0.6) were similar between the groups. No differences were observed with respect to conversion rate (2 vs 5, p = 0.43), operative time (146 vs 150 min, p = 0.48), estimated blood loss (159 vs 183 ml, p = 0.99), time to first flatus (3 vs 3 days, p = 0.91), time to first bowel movement (3 vs 4 days, p = 0.62), length of hospital stay (7 vs 6 days, p = 0.37), or reoperation (2 vs 1, p > 0.99), and readmission rates (2 vs 2, p > 0.99). There were no deaths.
conclusionFor obese patients undergoing colorectal resections, single-port laparoscopy appears to be as safe and effective as conventional laparoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.