ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2016
Hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Usefulness of Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Restorative Proctocolectomy for Ulcerative Colitis in the Era of Laparoscopic Surgery - A Single-center Observational Study.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2024Article
- Successful surgical procedure based on careful preoperative imaging for chronic idiopathic colonic pseudo-obstruction: a case report.Surgical case reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the utility of hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy (HALS-RP) compared with the conventional open procedure (OPEN-RP).
methodsFifty-one patients who underwent restorative total proctocolectomy with rectal mucosectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis between January 2008 and July 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty-three patients in the HALS-RP group and twenty-four patients in the OPEN-RP group were compared. Four patients who had purely laparoscopic surgery were excluded. Restorative total proctocolectomy was performed with mucosectomy and a hand-sewn ileal-pouch-anal anastomosis. Preoperative comorbidities, intraoperative factors such as blood loss and operative time, postoperative complications, and postoperative course were compared between two groups.
resultsPatients in both groups were matched with regards to patient age, gender, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. There were no significant differences in extent of colitis, indications for surgery, preoperative comorbidities, and preoperative medications in the two groups. The median operative time for the HALS-RP group was 369 (320-420) min, slightly longer than the OPEN-RP group at 355 (318-421) min; this was not statistically significant. Blood loss was significantly less in HALS-RP [300 (230-402) mL] compared to OPEN-RP [512 (401-1162) mL, P = 0.003]. Anastomotic leakage was noted in 3 patients in the HALS-RP group and 2 patients in the OPEN-RP group (13% vs 8.3%, NS). The rates of other postoperative complications and the length of hospital stay were not different between the two groups.
conclusionHALS-RP can be performed with less blood loss and smaller skin incisions. This procedure is a feasible technique for total proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis.
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.