ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017
A comparison of endoscopic localization error rate between operating surgeons and referring endoscopists in colorectal cancer.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Evaluating the accuracy of preoperative endoscopic localization for colorectal cancer: post hoc analysis of a prospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Observational
- Diagnostic Benefits and Surgical Implications of Methods for Tumor Localization in Sigmoid and Rectum Tumors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Preoperative localization of potentially invisible colonic lesions on the laparoscopic operation field: using autologous blood tattooing.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Article
- Value of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in endoscopy negative biopsy patients with rectal lesions.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Fallibility of tattooing colonic neoplasia ahead of laparoscopic resection: a retrospective cohort study.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023Article
- The quality of screening colonoscopy in rural and underserved areas.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Rates and predictors of repeat preoperative endoscopy for elective colorectal resections: how can we avoid repeated procedures?Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Preoperative Localization in Colonic Surgery (PLoCoS Study): a multicentric experience on behalf of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR).Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- A Real-Time Endoscope Motion Tracker.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2022Article
- Clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Diagnostic utility of staging abdominal computerized tomography and repeat endoscopy in detecting localization errors at initial endoscopy in colorectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Preoperative repeat endoscopy for colorectal cancer: What is its role and when is it necessary?Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) has a localization error rate as high as 21 %. Such errors can have substantial clinical consequences, particularly in laparoscopic surgery. The primary objective of this study was to compare accuracy of tumor localization at initial endoscopy performed by either the operating surgeon or non-operating referring endoscopist.
methodsAll patients who underwent surgical resection for CRC at a large tertiary academic hospital between January 2006 and August 2014 were identified. The exposure of interest was the initial endoscopist: (1) surgeon who also performed the definitive operation (operating surgeon group); and (2) referring gastroenterologist or general surgeon (referring endoscopist group). The outcome measure was localization error, defined as a difference in at least one anatomic segment between initial endoscopy and final operative location. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore the association between localization error rate and the initial endoscopist.
resultsA total of 557 patients were included in the study; 81 patients in the operating surgeon cohort and 476 patients in the referring endoscopist cohort. Initial diagnostic colonoscopy performed by the operating surgeon compared to referring endoscopist demonstrated statistically significant lower intraoperative localization error rate (1.2 vs. 9.0 %, P = 0.016); shorter mean time from endoscopy to surgery (52.3 vs. 76.4 days, P = 0.015); higher tattoo localization rate (32.1 vs. 21.0 %, P = 0.027); and lower preoperative repeat endoscopy rate (8.6 vs. 40.8 %, P < 0.001). Initial endoscopy performed by the operating surgeon was protective against localization error on both univariate analysis, OR 7.94 (95 % CI 1.08-58.52; P = 0.016), and multivariate analysis, OR 7.97 (95 % CI 1.07-59.38; P = 0.043).
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that diagnostic colonoscopies performed by an operating surgeon are independently associated with a lower localization error rate. Further research exploring the factors influencing localization accuracy and why operating surgeons have lower error rates relative to non-operating endoscopists is necessary to understand differences in care.
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.