Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33871717›Full record

Observational studySurgical endoscopy2022

Failure to rescue following proctectomy for rectal cancer: the additional benefit of laparoscopic approach in a nationwide observational study of 44,536 patients.

Mehdi El Amrani, Guillaume Clement, Xavier Lenne, Anthony Turpin, Caroline Valibouze, Moshe Rogosnitzky, Didier Theis, François-René Pruvot, Philippe Zerbib

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 56% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mehdi El AmraniDepartment of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France. mehdi_elamrani@hotmail.fr.ORCID 0000-0001-9744-7826
Guillaume ClementMedical Information Department, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France.
Xavier LenneMedical Information Department, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France.
Anthony TurpinDepartment of Medical Oncology, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France.
Caroline ValibouzeDepartment of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France.
Moshe RogosnitzkyDepartment of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France.
Didier TheisMedical Information Department, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France.
François-René PruvotDepartment of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France.
Philippe ZerbibDepartment of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France.
Université de Lille · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing evidence that failure to rescue (FTR) is an important factor of postoperative mortality (POM) after rectal cancer surgery and surgical approach modified post-operative outcomes. However, the impact of laparoscopy on FTR after proctectomy for rectal cancer remains unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the rates of postoperative complications and FTR after laparoscopy vs open proctectomy for cancer.

methodsAll patients who underwent proctectomy for rectal cancer between 2012 and 2016 were included. FTR was defined as the 90-day POM rate among patients with major complications. Outcomes of patients undergoing open or laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery were compared after 1:1 propensity score matching by year of surgery, hospital volume, sex, age, Charlson score, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, tumor localization and type of anastomosis.

resultsOverall, 44,536 patients who underwent proctectomy were included, 7043 of whom (15.8%) developed major complications. The rates of major complications, POM and FTR were significantly higher in open compared to laparoscopic procedure (major complications: 19.2% vs 13.7%, p < 0.001; POM: 5.4% vs 2.3%, p < 0.001; FTR: 13.6% vs 8.3%, p < 0.001; respectively). After matching, open and laparoscopic groups were comparable. Multivariate analysis showed that age, Charlson score, sphincter-preserving procedure and surgical approach were predictive factors for FTR. Open proctectomy was found to be a risk factor for FTR (OR 1.342, IC95% [1.066; 1.689], p = 0.012) compared to laparoscopic procedure.

conclusionWhen complications occurred, patients operated on by open proctectomy were more likely to die.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyProctectomyRectal NeoplasmsHumansPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRectumRetrospective StudiesFailure to rescueLaparoscopyOpenProctectomyRectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID33871717
OpenAlexW3156600815

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.