Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25761553›Full record

Observational studySurgical endoscopy2015

Reduced perioperative death following laparoscopic colorectal resection: results of an international observational study.

A Munasinghe, B Singh, N Mahmoud, M Joy, D C Chang, F Penninckx, O Faiz

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Colorectal Resection in Transplant Centers Benefits Kidney But Not Pancreas Transplant Recipients.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

A MunasingheDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, St Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK. aruna@doctors.org.uk.
B SinghUniversity Hospitals Leicester, Leicester, UK.
N MahmoudDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
M JoyDr Foster Ltd, 1st Floor Jarvis House, 12 Smithfield Street, London, EC1A 9LA, UK.
D C ChangDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, USA.
F PenninckxDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospitals Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
O FaizDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, St Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK. omarfaiz@aol.com.
Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven · BEUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust · GBUniversity of California, San Diego · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic approaches to colorectal surgery are known to accelerate recovery but the effect on postoperative mortality is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences exist in postoperative mortality between patients undergoing laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery in a group of international healthcare institutions.

methodsAdministrative data from 30 worldwide institutions were searched for patients who underwent elective colorectal surgical resection between January 2007 and December 2011. The primary outcome measure was 30-day-in-hospital mortality rate. Secondary outcome measures were 30-day readmission rate, length of stay, and 30-day reoperation rate.

resultsThere were 30,369 (20,641 colonic and 9728 rectal) resections recorded over the 5 years. Eight thousand eighty-six were laparoscopic (26.6%) and 22,283 (73.4%) were open. Following propensity-score matching of the laparoscopic and open cohorts, mortality was 0.5% following laparoscopic colectomy and 1.2% after conventional surgery (P < 0.001). After adjusting for differences in preoperative risk factors including gender, age, comorbidity, type of surgery and diagnosis, by matching on propensity score, laparoscopic surgery was a strong determinant of reduced 30-day mortality (odds ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.62; P < 0.001), reduced hospital stay (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.39-0.45; P < 0.001), reduced readmission (odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.71-0.86; P < 0.001) and reduced re-operation (odds ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.65-0.76; P < 0.001).

conclusionsMinimally invasive colorectal surgery is associated with reduced in-hospital mortality when compared with conventional techniques. This finding is consistent across international healthcare institutions and supports efforts to disseminate laparoscopic skills.

Indexed as

Elective Surgical ProceduresRisk AssessmentAgedAged, 80 and overColectomyFemaleHospital MortalityHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMalePostoperative ComplicationsReoperationSurvival RateUnited KingdomUnited StatesColorectalLaparoscopyMinimally invasive surgery

Identifiers

PMID25761553
OpenAlexW2104617095

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.