ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2016
Short-term outcomes after laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients with previous abdominal surgery: A systematic review.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2016. 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of previous abdominal surgery on robotic-assisted rectal surgery in patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2020Article
- Predicting Selection Preference of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) in a Chinese Single Center Population: Development and Assessment of a New Predictive Nomogram.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019Article
- Attempting a Laparoscopic Approach in Patients Undergoing Left-Sided Colorectal Surgery Who Have Had a Previous Laparotomy: Is it Feasible?Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2018Article
- Short-term surgical outcomes of minimally invasive repeat hepatectomy for recurrent liver cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo perform a systematic review focusing on short-term outcomes after colorectal surgery in patients with previous abdominal open surgery (PAOS).
methodsA broad literature search was performed with the terms "colorectal", "colectomy", "PAOS", "previous surgery" and "PAOS". Studies were included if their topic was laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients with PAOS, whether descriptive or comparative. Endpoints of interest were conversion rates, inadvertent enterotomy and morbidity. Analysis of articles was made according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
resultsFrom a total of 394 citations, 13 full-texts achieved selection criteria to be included in the study. Twelve of them compared patients with and without PAOS. All studies were retrospective and comparative and two were case-matched. The selected studies comprised a total of 5005 patients, 1865 with PAOS. Among the later, only 294 (16%) had history of a midline incision for previous gastrointestinal surgery. Conversion rates were significantly higher in 3 of 12 studies and inadvertent enterotomy during laparoscopy was more prevalent in 3 of 5 studies that disclosed this event. Morbidity was similar in the majority of studies. A quantitative analysis (meta-analysis) could not be performed due to heterogeneity of the studies.
conclusionConversion rates were slightly higher in PAOS groups, although not statistical significant in most studies. History of PAOS did not implicate in higher morbidity rates.
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.