Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25247167›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2014

Comparison of the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon perforation during colonoscopy.

Jeongsoo Kim, Gil Jae Lee, Jeong-Heum Baek, Won-Suk Lee

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Laparoscopic repair using an endoscopic linear stapler for management of iatrogenic colonic perforation during screening colonoscopy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2019
    Article
  6. Colon cancer with perforation.Surgery today · 2019
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jeongsoo KimGachon University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
Gil Jae LeeDepartment of Surgery, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Gachon University Shcool of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
Jeong-Heum BaekDepartment of Surgery, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Gachon University Shcool of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
Won-Suk LeeDepartment of Surgery, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Gachon University Shcool of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
Gachon University · KRGachon University Gil Medical Center · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeColonoscopy is a safe and commonly used method for the screening of colon cancer, but sometimes major complications, such as, colonic perforation or hemorrhage occur during the procedure. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for colon perforation after colonoscopy.

methodsA retrospective review of patient records was performed on 25 patients with iatrogenic colon perforation during colonoscopy during the 7-year period from January 2005 to June 2012. Demographic data, operative procedures, operation times, postoperative complications, hospital course, and morbidities in the laparoscopic surgery group (LG) and open surgery group (OG) were compared.

resultsSeventeen of the 25 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (68%) and 8 patients open surgery (32%). The most common surgical methods were primary repair in the LG, and Hartmann's operation in the OG. Average time to first flatus was 2.9 days in the LG and 4.5 days in the OG, and average times to first meals were 4.5 days and 5 days, respectively. Mean hospital stays were 10.8 days in the LG and 17 days in the OG. After surgery, complications occurred in two patients in the LG, but no complication occurred in the OG.

conclusionLaparoscopic repair for iatrogenic colonic perforation during colonoscopy seems to be useful and safe surgical method in early period after perforation. However, open surgery is also needed for the delayed cases after perforation.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyIntestinal perforationLaparoscopy

Identifiers

PMID25247167
PMCPMC4170577
OpenAlexW1970474818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.