ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
SAGES 2022 guidelines regarding the use of laparoscopy in the era of COVID-19.
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 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- SAGES guidelines update to laparoscopy in the era of COVID-19.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Guideline
- Presence of SARS-CoV-2 in abdominal tissues and biologic fluids during abdominal surgery: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in surgical smoke in minimally invasive and open surgery: a single-center prospective clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Influence of SARS-CoV2 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis, Presentation, and Surgical Management in a Tertiary Center: A Retrospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Characterisation and mitigation of gas leaks at laparoscopy: an international prospective, multi-center cohort clinical trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Letter to Editor: In response to existence of SARS-CoV-2 in the peritoneal fluid.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024Article
- Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Clinical and Pathologic Characteristics of Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Multicenter Study in South Korea.Cancer management and research · 2024Article
- Surgical safety in the COVID-19 era: present and future considerations.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2022Review
- Suspected and Confirmed Acute Appendicitis During the COVID-19 Pandemic: First and Second Quarantines-a Prospective Study.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- The impact of COVID-19 pandemic in the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer patients.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 12 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSARS-CoV-2 has changed global healthcare since the pandemic began in 2020. The safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) utilizing insufflation from the standpoint of safety to the operating room personnel is currently being explored. The aims of this guideline are to examine the existing evidence to provide guidance regarding MIS for the patient with, or suspecting of having, the SARS-CoV-2 as well as the healthcare team involved.
methodsSystematic literature reviews were conducted for 2 key questions (KQ) regarding the safety of MIS in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using a narrative synthesis of the literature by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed.
resultsIn KQ1, a total of 1361 articles were reviewed, with 2 articles meeting inclusion. In KQ2, a total of 977 articles were reviewed, with 4 articles met inclusions criteria, of which 2 studies reported on the SARS-CoV2 virus specifically. Despite many publications in the field, very little well-controlled and unbiased data exist to inform the recommendations. Of that which is available, it shows that both laparoscopic and open operations in Covid-positive patients had similar rates of OR staff positivity rates; however, patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures had a lower perioperative mortality than open procedures. Also, SARS-CoV-2 particles have been detected in the surgical plume at laparoscopy.
conclusionWith demonstrated equivalence of operating room staff exposure, and noninferiority of laparoscopic access with respect to mortality, either laparoscopic or open approaches to abdominal operations may be used in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Measures should be employed for all laparoscopic or open cases to prevent exposure of operating room staff to the surgical plume, as virus can be present in this plume.
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.