ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
Re-Operative Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of laparoscopic reoperation for anastomotic leak-associated peritonitis following colorectal cancer surgery: a comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2023Article
- Outcomes of redo for failed colorectal or coloanal anastomoses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of coloproctology · 2023Review
- Relaparoscopy in the management of post-operative complications after minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Re-do laparoscopic esophagojejunostomy for anastomotic stenosis after laparoscopic total gastrectomy in gastric cancer.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRe-operative laparoscopic colorectal surgery is becoming increasingly common. It can be a challenging procedure, but its benefits can outweigh the associated risks.
methodsA systematic review of the literature reporting re-operative laparoscopic surgery was carried out. Retrospective and prospective cohort studies and case series were included, with case reports being excluded.
resultsSeventeen articles dated from 2007 to 2020 were included in the systematic review. In total, 1555 patients were identified. Five hundred and seventy-four of them had a laparoscopic procedure and 981 an open re-operation. One hundred and eighty-three women had a laparoscopic operation. The median age ranged from to 44.9 years to 68.7 years. In seven studies, the indication of the index operation was malignancy, one study regarded re-laparoscopy for excision of lateral pelvic lymph nodes, and one study looked at redo surgery of ileal J pouch anal anastomosis. There were 16 mortalities in the laparoscopic arm (2.78%) and 93 (9.4%) in the open surgery arm. One hundred and thirty-seven morbidities were recorded in the open arm and 102 in the laparoscopic arm. Thirty-nine conversions to open occurred. The median length of stay ranged from 5.8 days to 19 days in laparoscopy and 9.7 to 34 days in the open surgery arm.
conclusionsRe-operative laparoscopic colorectal surgery is safe when performed by experienced hands. The management of complications, recurrence of malignancy, and lateral pelvic floor dissection can be safely performed. The complication rate is low, with conversion to open procedures being relatively uncommon.
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.