ArticleBMC surgery2023
Benefits of a laparoscopic approach for second colorectal resection after colectomy or proctectomy -a retrospective study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA laparoscopic approach generally provides several benefits in patients who undergo colon or rectal surgery without jeopardizing oncological outcomes. However, there is a paucity of studies on comparative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open approaches for second primary colorectal lesions after colectomy or proctectomy.
methodsFrom patients with colorectal disease who underwent surgery between 2008 and 2022 at our hospital, we collected 69 consecutive patients who had previous colorectal surgery for this retrospective study. Based on the second surgery approach (laparoscopic or open), patients were classified into the Lap (n = 37) or Op group (n = 32). Patients' baseline data and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.
resultsFour patients (11%) of the Lap group needed conversion to laparotomy. The intraoperative blood loss was lower in the Lap group than the Op group (median: 45 ml vs. 205 ml, p = 0.001). The time to first bowel movement was shorter in the Lap group than the Op group (median: 2.8 days vs. 3.6 days, p = 0.007). The operative time, frequencies of postoperative morbidities, and overall survival did not differ between the two groups.
conclusionLaparoscopic surgery appeared feasible and beneficial for selected patients undergoing second colorectal resection after colectomy or proctectomy regarding blood loss and bowel function recovery without affecting other outcomes.
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.