Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28643055›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018

Open versus laparoscopic rectal cancer resection and risk of subsequent incisional hernia repair and paracolostomy hernia repair: a nationwide population-based cohort study.

Peter Andersen, Rune Erichsen, Trine Frøslev, Mogens R Madsen, Søren Laurberg, Lene H Iversen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Computed Tomography Verified Prevalence of Incisional Hernia 1 Year Postoperatively after Colorectal Cancer Resection.Scandinavian journal of surgery : SJS : official organ for the Finnish Surgical Society and the Scandinavian Surgical Society · 2021
    Article
  5. A Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Surgical Approaches to Proctectomy.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peter AndersenDepartment of Surgery, Section of Coloproctology, Aarhus University Hospital, Tage-Hansens Gade 2, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. peterand82@hotmail.com.
Rune ErichsenDepartment of Surgery, Section of Coloproctology, Aarhus University Hospital, Tage-Hansens Gade 2, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Trine FrøslevDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Mogens R MadsenDepartment of Surgery, Regional Hospital Herning, Herning, Denmark.
Søren LaurbergDepartment of Surgery, Section of Coloproctology, Aarhus University Hospital, Tage-Hansens Gade 2, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Lene H IversenDepartment of Surgery, Section of Coloproctology, Aarhus University Hospital, Tage-Hansens Gade 2, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Aarhus University Hospital · DKRegionshospitalet Herning · DK

Funding

PROCRIN R1-005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the risk of incisional hernia repair (IHR) and paracolostomy hernia repair (PHR) following open and laparoscopic rectal cancer resection with curative intent.

backgroundLaparoscopic rectal cancer resection has been implemented to varying degrees around the world. IHR and PHR following open and laparoscopic rectal cancer resection have only been sparingly evaluated.

methodsPatients who underwent rectal cancer resection were identified in the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group's database. To identify IHR and PHR following rectal cancer resection, we linked data to the Danish Ventral Hernia Database. The absolute risk of IHR and PHR was estimated as cumulative incidence proportions, treating death as competing risk. We used Cox proportional hazard regression analysis with multivariable adjustment to compute hazard ratios (HRs) comparing open and laparoscopic approach.

resultsThe 5-year risk of IHR was 4.1% among patients undergoing open resection (n = 3090) and 3.2% among those undergoing laparoscopic resection (n = 3099), corresponding to a risk difference of 0.9% (95% CI 0.0-2.0, P = 0.057). Laparoscopic rectal resection was not associated with lower risk of IHR (adjusted HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67-1.31, P = 0.709). A total of 2577 patients had a colostomy at rectal cancer resection and the 5-year risk of PHR was 2.1% after open surgery compared with 6.7% after laparoscopic surgery, corresponding to a risk difference of -4.6% (95% CI -6.4 to -2.7, P < 0.001). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with increased risk of PHR (adjusted HR 2.56, 95% CI 1.53-4.29, P < 0.001).

conclusionWe observed no association between surgical approach of rectal cancer resection and subsequent IHR. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with increased risk of PHR.

Indexed as

AgedCohort StudiesColostomyDatabases, FactualDenmarkFemaleHerniorrhaphyHumansIncidenceIncisional HerniaLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedProctectomyProportional Hazards ModelsRectal NeoplasmsIncisional hernia repairLaparoscopic surgeryOpen surgeryParacolostomy hernia repairRectal cancer surgery

Identifiers

PMID28643055
OpenAlexW2650257788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.