ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2023
Minimally invasive colectomies can be performed with similar outcomes to open counterparts for colorectal cancer emergencies: a propensity score matching analysis utilizing ACS-NSQIP.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer emergencies.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe safety and feasibility of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the setting of colorectal cancer emergencies have been debated. We sought to compare postoperative outcomes of MIS with open techniques in the setting of colorectal cancer emergencies from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database.
methodsWe included patients undergoing colectomy for colorectal cancer emergency between 2012 and 2019 "2012-2019" from the ACS-NSQIP dataset. We compared short-term morbidity, mortality, short-term oncological outcomes, and secondary outcomes for MIS vs open colectomies using propensity score matching. We then evaluated the trends of MIS versus open colectomies using linear regression analysis.
resultsWe examined a total of 5544 patients (open n = 4070; MIS n = 1474) and included 1352 patients for our postoperative outcome analyses after propensity score matching 1:1 (open n = 676; MIS n = 676). Within the matched cohort, mortality was significantly higher in the open group (open 6.95% vs MIS 3.99%, OR 1.8, p = 0.023). Anastomotic leak rates were comparable between the two groups (open 4.46% vs MIS 4.02%, OR 1.12, p = 0.787). Pulmonary complications were significantly higher after open surgery (open 10.06% vs MIS 4.73%, OR 2.25, p < 0.001). Rates of ileus were significantly higher amongst open patients (open 29.08% vs MIS 19.94%, p < 0.001). Patients stayed on average 1 day longer in the hospital after open surgery (p < 0.001). Rates of MIS for early tumors (N0 and T1/T2, n = 289) did not significantly change over 7 years (p = 0.597, rate = - 0.065%/year); however, utilization of MIS for late tumors (N1 or T3/T4, n = 4359) increased by 2.06% per year (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that MIS was associated with superior postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery without compromising oncological outcomes in patients undergoing emergency colectomy for colon cancer. Within the matched cohort, MIS was associated with lower rates of mortality, pulmonary complications, ileus, and shorter postoperative length of stay.
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.