Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33230649›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2021

Redo-laparoscopy in the management of complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical outcomes.

P Fransvea, G Costa, L D'Agostino, G Sganga, A Serao

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The Association of Polish Surgeons (APS) clinical guidelines for the use of laparoscopy in the management of abdominal emergencies. Part II.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

P FransveaEmergency Surgery and Trauma, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. pietro.fransvea@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4969-3373
G CostaDepartment of Surgery, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Rome, Italy.
L D'AgostinoEmergency Surgery and Trauma, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
G SgangaEmergency Surgery and Trauma, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
A SeraoGeneral Surgery Department, Ospedale Dei Castelli, ASL RM 6, Rome, Italy.
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITAzienda Sanitaria Locale Roma 3 · ITUniversità Campus Bio-Medico · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe laparoscopic approach for colorectal surgery has gradually become widely accepted for the treatment of both benign and malignant diseases thanks to its several advantages over the open approach. However, it is associated with the same potential postoperative complications. Some recent studies have analyzed the potential role of laparoscopy in early diagnosis and management of complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the outcomes of redo-laparoscopy (RL) for the management of early postoperative complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery, focusing on length of stay, morbidity and mortality.

methodsA systematic review of the literature was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines through MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Google Scholar from January 1990 to December 2019. The main outcomes examined were conversion rate, length of hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. A meta-analysis of all eligible studies was then conducted and forest plots were generated.

resultsA total of 19 studies involving 1394 patients who required reoperation after laparoscopic colorectal resection were included. In 539 (38.2%) of these patients, a laparoscopic approach was adopted. The most common indication for returning to the operating theater was anastomotic leakage (64.4% of all redo-surgeries, 67.7% of RL) and the most common type of intervention performed in RL was diverting stoma with or without anastomotic repair/redo (47.1%). Nine studies were included in the pooled analysis. The mean length of stay was significantly shorter in the RL group than in the redo-open one (WMD = - 0.90; 95% CI - 1.04 to - 0.76; Z =  - 12,6; p < 0.001). A significantly lower risk of mortality was observed in the RL cohort (OR =  - 0.91; 95% CI - 1.58 to - 0.23; Z = - 2.62; p = 0.009).

conclusionsLaparoscopy is a valid and effective approach for the treatment of complications following laparoscopic primary colorectal surgery thanks to it is well-established advantages over the open approach, which remain noticeable even in redo-surgeries.

Indexed as

Colorectal SurgeryDigestive System Surgical ProceduresLaparoscopyHumansLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationTreatment OutcomeColorectal surgeryComplicationsManagementRe-laparoscopy

Identifiers

PMID33230649
OpenAlexW3108913810

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.