ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2016
Conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Are short-term outcomes worse than with open surgery?
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of 20 patients with laparoscopic extended right colectomy.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Trial
- A machine learning model to predict the need for conversion of operative approach in patients undergoing colectomy for neoplasm.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- What influences conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic colorectal resection?Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Long-term oncologic outcome and risk factors after conversion in laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Article
- SICE national survey: current state on the adoption of laparoscopic approach to the treatment of colorectal disease in Italy.Updates in surgery · 2019Article
- Effects of Laparoscopic and Conventional Methods on Lung Functions in Colorectal Surgery.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the present study was to compare the perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent planned open colectomy to those who were converted to an open.
methodsAll patients who underwent elective colectomy were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program using procedure-targeted database (2012-2014). Patients were divided into two groups: open (planned) versus converted. Perioperative outcomes were compared. A logistic regression model was used to calculate the propensity of unplanned conversion as opposed to open surgery.
resultsThere were 21,437 patients; 17,366 (81.0%) in the open group and 4071 (19.0%) in the converted group. Operative time was longer in the converted group (212 ± 99 vs. 182 ± 111 min, p < 0.001), and hospital stay was longer in the open group (10.5 ± 9.3 vs. 8.7 ± 7.7 days, p < 0.001). Difference in morbidity rate (37.6% open vs. 34.5% converted, p < 0.001) was no longer significant once confounders were adjusted. Specific complications were similar except for superficial surgical site infection (SSI) rate, which was significantly lower in open group (odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.76-0.97, p = 0.010).
conclusionsThe current study showed that conversion of laparoscopic colectomy to an open approach was associated with slight increase in superficial SSI rate but shorter hospital stay compared to planned open.
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.