ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Safety and feasibility of repeat laparoscopic colorectal resection: a matched case-control study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors affecting survival prognosis of patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic redo surgery for sigmoid volvulus following laparoscopic sigmoidectomy.Surgical case reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Tunnel versus medial approach in laparoscopic radical right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer: a retrospective cohort study.BMC surgery · 2022Article
- A Prediction Model Intended for Exploratory Laparoscopy Risk Stratification in Colorectal Cancer Patients With Potential Occult Peritoneal Metastasis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Risk of bowel fistula following surgical management of deep endometriosis of the rectosigmoid: a series of 1102 cases.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerioperative outcomes of repeat laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCRR) have not been extensively reported.
methodsPatients who underwent LCRR from 2010 to 2018 in an expert center were retrieved from a prospectively collected database and compared to 2:1 matched sample. Matching was based on demographics, surgical indication [colorectal cancer (CRC) or benign condition], and type of resection (right-sided resection or left-sided resection or proctectomy).
resultsTwenty-three patients underwent repeat LCRR with a median time of 36 months between the primary and the repeat LCRR. They were 12 (52%) men with a mean age of 64.9 years (31-87) and a median BMI of 21.4 kg/m
conclusionsRepeat LCRR seems to be feasible and safe in expert hands without compromising the oncologic outcomes. Intense postoperative adhesions and misidentification of blood supply might lead to conversion to laparotomy. Real benefits of laparoscopic approach for repeat LCRR should be assessed in further studies.
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.