ArticleUpdates in surgery2015
Colorectal surgery in a rural setting.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Providers' and survivors' perspectives on the availability and accessibility of surgery in gastrointestinal cancer care.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2024Article
- Has the open surgical approach in colorectal cancer really become uncommon?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Multidisciplinary treatment of cancer.Updates in surgery · 2021Article
- Day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: analysis of the factors allowing early discharge.Updates in surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal surgery is increasingly being concentrated in high-volume tertiary centers, whereas it has been demonstrated that it can be performed safely and effectively even in low-volume hospitals. We analyzed data of patients who underwent major colorectal surgery in 1 year in a "rural" hospital, located on a small island, where a dynamic colorectal multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an enhanced recovery programme have been implemented. Primary endpoints were rate of laparoscopic resections, morbidity, mortality and number of lymph nodes retrieved and examined. Secondary endpoints were rate of R0 resections and length of postoperative stay. Seventy-six patients had surgery for a severe colorectal condition. Fifty-five resections have been performed, 38 by laparoscopy (69.1 %). Conversion rate was 5 %. Morbidity for resections was 21.8 %. General leak rate was 1.8 %, no leaks in laparoscopic resections. There was no difference in morbidity between open and laparoscopic resections. Postoperative stay was significantly shorter in laparoscopic vs open operations and in elective vs emergency operations. Number of lymph nodes retrieved was higher in laparoscopic vs open resections, 85.4 % of patients had 12 or more lymph nodes examined. Overall rate of R0 resections was 80.5 %, higher in laparoscopic vs open resections. Major colorectal surgery can be performed safely and effectively also in low-volume hospitals in the presence of a trained high-volume surgeon, an effective MDT and an Enhanced Recovery Programme.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26545384What 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.