ArticleSaudi medical journal2022
The role of laparoscopy in emergency colorectal surgery.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility and safety of laparoscopic small bowel resections with intracorporal anastomosis in emergency settings - a retrospective single centre study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical profile, treatment patterns, and early outcomes of colorectal cancer at Kassala Police Hospital, Eastern Sudan: a 10-year retrospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Review
- Surgical outcomes of curative intent management in emergency vs. elective colon cancer: A retrospective single center study.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2025Article
- Article
- Restoration of Pulmonary Compliance after Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgery Using a Recruitment Maneuver.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Factors associated with 30-day mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing emergency colorectal surgery.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the outcomes of the laparoscopic approach compared to those of the open approach in emergency colorectal surgery.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included all patients aged >15 years who underwent emergency colorectal surgery from 2016-2021 at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Patients were divided based on the surgical approach into laparoscopic and open groups.
resultsA total of 241 patients (182 open resections, 59 laparoscopic approaches) were included in this study. The length of stay in the intensive care unit was shorter in the laparoscopic than in the open group (1±3 days vs. 7±16 days). After multivariable logistic regression, patients undergoing laparoscopic resection had a 70% lower risk of surgical site infection than those undergoing open surgery (adjusted odds ratio=0.33, 95% confidence interval: [0.06-1.67]), a difference that was not significant (
conclusionLaparoscopy in emergency colorectal surgery is safe and feasible, with a trend toward better outcomes. Colorectal surgery specialization is an independent predictor of an increased likelihood of undergoing laparoscopy in emergency colorectal surgery.
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.