ArticleDiseases of the colon and rectum2015
Single-Site Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Provides Similar Clinical Outcomes Compared With Standard Laparoscopic Surgery: An Analysis of 626 Patients.
Article in Diseases of the colon and rectum, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Guideline
- A multicomponent prehabilitation pathway to reduce the incidence of delirium in elderly patients in need of major abdominal surgery: study protocol for a before-and-after study.BMC geriatrics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCompared with standard laparoscopy, single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery may potentially offer advantages by creating fewer surgical incisions and providing a multifunctional trocar. Previous comparisons, however, have been limited by small sample sizes and selection bias.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare 60-day outcomes between standard laparoscopic and single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery patients undergoing elective and urgent surgeries.
designThis was an unselected, retrospective cohort study comparing patients who underwent elective and unplanned standard laparoscopic or single-site laparoscopic colorectal resections for benign and malignant disease between 2008 and 2014. Outcomes were compared using univariate analyses. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a single institution. PATIENTS: A total of 626 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included.
main outcome measuresMorbidity and mortality rates within 60 postoperative days were measured.
resultsA total of 318 (51%) and 308 patients (49%) underwent standard laparoscopic and single-site laparoscopic procedures. No significant differences were noted in mean operative time (standard laparoscopy, 182.1 ± 81.3 vs single-site laparoscopy, 177.0 ± 86.5; p = 0.30) or postoperative length of stay (standard laparoscopy, 4.8 ± 3.4 vs single-site laparoscopy, 5.5 ± 6.9; p = 0.14). Conversions to laparotomy and 60-day readmissions were also similar for both cohorts across all of the procedures performed. A significant difference was identified in the number of patients who developed postoperative complications (standard laparoscopy, 19.2% vs single-site laparoscopy, 10.7%; p = 0.004), especially with respect to surgical-site infections (standard laparoscopy, 11.3% vs single-site laparoscopy, 5.8%; p = 0.02). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective, single institution study.
conclusionsSingle-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery demonstrates similar results to standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery with regard to operative time, length of stay, and readmissions. Single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery may provide advantages in limiting the development of certain complications, such as superficial surgical-site infections.
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.