Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25609316›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2015

Does single port improve results of laparoscopic colorectal surgery? A propensity score adjustment analysis.

Antoine Khayat, Léon Maggiori, Eric Vicaut, Marianne Ferron, Yves Panis

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Short-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Diseases: Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Prospective Evidence.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

5 authors.

Antoine KhayatService de Chirurgie Colorectale, Pôle des Maladies de l'Appareil Digestif, Hôpital Beaujon - Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP), Université Paris VII (Denis Diderot), 100 boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92110, Clichy, France.
Léon MaggioriService de Chirurgie Colorectale, Pôle des Maladies de l'Appareil Digestif, Hôpital Beaujon - Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP), Université Paris VII (Denis Diderot), 100 boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92110, Clichy, France.
Eric VicautDepartment of Clinical Research, Lariboisière hospital, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris VII, Paris, France.
Marianne FerronService de Chirurgie Colorectale, Pôle des Maladies de l'Appareil Digestif, Hôpital Beaujon - Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP), Université Paris VII (Denis Diderot), 100 boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92110, Clichy, France.
Yves PanisService de Chirurgie Colorectale, Pôle des Maladies de l'Appareil Digestif, Hôpital Beaujon - Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP), Université Paris VII (Denis Diderot), 100 boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92110, Clichy, France. yves.panis@bjn.aphp.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe benefit of single-incision laparoscopy (SIL) over conventional multiport laparoscopy (ML) is not demonstrated in colorectal surgery, mainly because of potentially biased reports. The objective of this study was to compare SIL to ML for colorectal resection, using a propensity score (PS) adjusted analysis.

methodsFrom July 2009 to April 2013, 764 patients who underwent 799 colorectal resections by SIL or ML were analyzed. PS was estimated using a logistic regression model.

resultsEighty-four colorectal resections were performed using SIL: 43 ileocolic resections, 15 right-sided colectomies, 14 left-sided colectomies, 5 rectal resections, 4 subtotal colectomies, and 3 total proctocolectomies. Intra-operative complications occurred in 3 procedures (4 %), and conversion laparotomy in 10 (12 %). Postoperative mortality was nil and overall morbidity rate was 25 %, including 7 % of major complications. Mean postoperative length of hospital stay was 8 ± 6 (4-47) days. Outcomes of SIL, when compared to those of 715 ML and after PS adjustment, showed no difference in terms of intra-operative complication (p = 0.315), conversion to open surgery (p = 0.387), overall morbidity (p = 0.393), major morbidity (p = 0.381), or length of postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.080). However, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter after SIL in the right colectomy subgroup (p = 0.001).

conclusionsIn colorectal surgery, SIL appears to be safe and effective as compared to ML. It can also reduce hospital stay after right colectomy. These results, if confirmed by randomized trials, would validate SIL in colorectal surgery.

Indexed as

LaparoscopesColectomyColonic DiseasesEquipment DesignFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreTreatment OutcomeColorectal surgeryLaparoscopyMorbidityPropensity scoreSingle-incision laparoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID25609316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.