Observational studySurgical endoscopy2018
Does the number of operating specialists influence the conversion rate and outcomes after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery?
Observational study 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.
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.
- Dual Surgeon Operating to Prevent Colorectal Cancer Surgery Skill Fatigue in Rural Surgery-A Prospective Audit of 154 Patients.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Laparoscopic intraarterial catheterization with selective ICG fluorescence imaging in colorectal surgery.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Are oncological long-term outcomes equal after laproscopic completed and converted laparoscopic converted rectal resection for cancer?Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer reveals comparable oncological outcome even in context of worse short-term results-long-term analysis of nearly 500 patients from two high-volume centers.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Article
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
backgroundLaparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery have been widely utilised due to short-term patient benefits but conversion to open surgery is associated with adverse short- and long-term patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of dual specialist operating on the conversion rate and patient outcomes following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
methodsA prospectively populated colorectal cancer surgery database was reviewed. Cases were grouped into single or dual consultant procedures. Cluster analysis and odds ratio (OR) were used to identify risk factors for conversion. Primary outcome measures were conversion to open and five year overall survival (OS) calculated using the Kaplan-Meier log-rank method.
results750 patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection between 2002 and 2015 (median age 73, 319 (42.5%) female, 282 (37.6%) rectal malignancies, 135 patients (18%) had two consultants). The single surgeon conversion rate was 20.4% compared to 5.5% for dual operating (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.87-10.2, p < 0.001). There were no demographic or tumour differences between the laparoscopic/converted and number of surgeon groups. Two-step cluster analysis identified cluster I (lower risk) 406 patients, 8% converted and cluster II (higher risk) 261 patients, conversion rate 30%. Median follow-up was 48 months (range 0-168). Five-year OS was significantly inferior for both converted and single surgeon cases (63% vs. 77%, p < 0.001 and 61% vs. 70%, p = 0.033, respectively).
conclusionIn selected colorectal cancer patients operated by fully trained laparoscopic surgeons, we observed a reduction in conversion with associated long-term survival benefit from dual operating specialists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29442241What 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.