ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
National differences in implementation of minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer and the influence on short-term outcomes.
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 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer in Africa: an outcome comparison endorsed by the Nigerian society for colorectal disorders.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Minimally invasive surgical resection reduces one-year mortality, especially in high-risk colon cancer patients: an emulated trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery in gastrointestinal tumors: current applications, oncologic considerations, and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Predictors of post-discharge pain outcomes after colorectal surgery: a prospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Article
- Rise in Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Is Associated With Adoption of Robotic Surgery.Diseases of the colon and rectum · 2025Article
- Surgical Approach and Variation in Long-Term Survival Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery Using Instrumental Variable Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- Association of center-level operative volume and acute outcomes following robotic-assisted colectomy for colorectal cancer.PloS one · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of the short and medium-term efficacy of the Da Vinci robotWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Impact of shear stress on sacral pressure injury from table rotation during laparoscopic colorectal surgery performed in the lithotomy position.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Short-term results in a population based study indicate advantage for minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery versus open.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Evolution of surgical approach to rectal cancer resection: A multinational registry assessment.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Uptake of robot-assisted colon cancer surgery in the Netherlands.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Practice variation and outcomes of minimally invasive minor liver resections in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a population-based study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Diagnosis and treatment for gastro-oesophageal cancer in England and Wales: analysis of the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA) database 2012-2020.The British journal of surgery · 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
11 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe timing and degree of implementation of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer vary among countries. Insights in national differences regarding implementation of new surgical techniques and the effect on postoperative outcomes are important for quality assurance, can show potential areas for country-specific improvement, and might be illustrative and supportive for similar implementation programs in other countries. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate differences in patient selection, applied techniques, and results of minimal invasive surgery for colorectal cancer between the Netherlands and Sweden.
methodsPatients who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery for T1-3 colon or rectal cancer (2012-2018) registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit or Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry were included. Time trends in the application of MIS were determined. Outcomes were compared for time periods with a similar level of MIS implementation (Netherlands 2012-2013 versus Sweden 2017-2018). Multilevel analyses were performed to identify factors associated with adverse short-term outcomes.
resultsA total of 46,095 Dutch and 8,819 Swedish patients undergoing MIS for colorectal cancer were included. In Sweden, MIS implementation was approximately 5 years later than in the Netherlands, with more robotic surgery and lower volumes per hospital. Although conversion rates were higher in Sweden, oncological and surgical outcomes were comparable. MIS in the Netherlands for the years 2012-2013 resulted in a higher reoperation rate for colon cancer and a higher readmission rate but lower non-surgical complication rates for rectal cancer if compared with MIS in Sweden during 2017-2018.
conclusionThis study showed that the implementation of MIS for colorectal cancer occurred later in Sweden than the Netherlands, with comparable outcomes despite lower volumes. Our study demonstrates that new surgical techniques can be implemented at a national level in a controlled and safe way, with thorough quality assurance.
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.