ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Influence of surgeon specialty and volume on the utilization of minimally invasive surgery and outcomes for colorectal cancer: a retrospective review.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic versus open emergency colonic resection for obstruction: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.BMC surgery · 2026Observational
- Impact of medical oncologist certification on survival outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer: evidence from the SCRUM-Japan MONSTAR-SCREEN Observational Study.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Observational
- Propensity score matching analysis of acute care (ACS) versus colorectal surgeons (CRS) in the management of left colonic perforation: Patient and system-level insights from a multicenter study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON THE EMERGENCY SURGICAL TREATMENT OF COLORECTAL CANCER.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2024Review
- Impact of surgeon specialty on clinical outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Surgical coaching applied to laparoscopic TME for continuous professional development in rectal surgery: proof of concept.Updates in surgery · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Surgery in the Emergency Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUtilization of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has multiple determinants, one being the specialization of the surgeon. The purpose of this study was to assess the differences in the utilization of MIS, associated length of stay (LOS), and complications for colorectal cancer between colorectal (CRS) and general surgeons (GS). Previous studies have documented the influence of surgical volume and surgeon specialty on clinical outcomes and patient survival following colorectal cancer surgery. It is unclear whether there are differences in the utilization of MIS for colorectal cancer based on surgeon's specialization and how this influences clinical outcomes.
methodsUsing the 2013-2015 Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset and the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System, colorectal cancer patients experiencing a colorectal surgery were identified as well as the operating physician's specialty. Mixed-effects regression models were used to identify associations between the use of MIS, complications during the hospital stay, and patient LOS with patient, physician, and hospital characteristics.
resultsThere is no difference in the use of MIS, complication, nor LOS between GS and CRS for colorectal cancer surgery. However, physician volume was associated with increased use of MIS (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09, 1.46) and MIS was associated with decreases in certain complications as well as reductions in LOS overall (β = - 0.16, p < 0.001) and for each specialty (GS: β = - 0.18, p < 0.001; CRS β = - 0.12, p < 0.001)
conclusionsDespite the higher amount of proctectomies performed by CRS, no difference in MIS utilization, complication rate, or LOS was found for colorectal cancer patients based on surgeon specialty. While there are some differences in clinical outcomes attributable to specialized training, results from this study indicate that differences in surgical approach (MIS vs. Open), as well as the patient populations encountered by these two specialties, are key factors in the outcomes observed.
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.