ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
"Relaparoscopy" to treat early complications following colorectal surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic surgery has shown clear benefits that could also be useful in the emergency setting such as early reoperations after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic reintervention ("relaparoscopy") (RL) to manage postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
methodsWe performed a retrospective study based on a prospectively collected database from 2000 to 2019. Patients who required a reoperation after undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included. According to the approach used at the reoperation, the cohort was divided in laparoscopy (RL) and laparotomy (LPM). Demographics, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed.
resultsA total of 159 patients underwent a reoperation after a laparoscopic colorectal surgery: 124 (78%) had RL and 35 (22%) LPM. Demographics were similar in both groups. Patients who underwent left colectomy were more frequently reoperated by laparoscopy (RL: 42.7% vs. LPM: 22.8%, p: 0.03). The most common finding at the reoperation was anastomotic leakage, which was treated more often by RL (RL: 67.7% vs. LPM: 25.7%, p: 0.0001), and the most common strategy was drainage and loop ileostomy (RL: 65.8% vs. LPM: 17.6%, p: 0.00001). Conversion was necessary in 12 patients (9.6%). Overall morbidity rate was 52.2%. Patients in the RL group had less postoperative severe complications (RL: 12.1% vs. LPM: 22.8, p: 0.01). Mortality rate was similar in both groups.
conclusionRelaparoscopy is feasible and safe for treating early postoperative complications, particularly anastomotic leakage after left colectomy.
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.