Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38597158›Full record

ArticleBJS open2024

Impact of hospital volume on failure to rescue for complications requiring reoperation after elective colorectal surgery: multicentre propensity score-matched cohort study.

Marie T Grönroos-Korhonen, Laura E Koskenvuo, Panu J Mentula, Taina P Nykänen, Selja K Koskensalo, Ari K Leppäniemi, Ville J Sallinen

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BJS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The Good and Bad of Regionalizing Colon Cancer Care.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marie T Grönroos-KorhonenGastroenterological Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-8750-7194
Laura E KoskenvuoGastroenterological Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-8335-7942
Panu J MentulaGastroenterological Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-6516-3797
Taina P NykänenGastroenterological Surgery, Hyvinkää Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Selja K KoskensaloGastroenterological Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Ari K LeppäniemiGastroenterological Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Ville J SallinenGastroenterological Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-5394-4169
University of Helsinki · FIHyvinkää Hospital · FI

Funding

Academy of FinlandCancer Foundation FinlandFinnish Government Research FundsMary and Georg Ehrnrooth's FoundationM I Turunen relief associationVatsatautien tutkimussäätiö Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has previously been reported that there are similar reoperation rates after elective colorectal surgery but higher failure-to-rescue (FTR) rates in low-volume hospitals (LVHs) versus high-volume hospitals (HVHs). This study assessed the effect of hospital volume on reoperation rate and FTR after reoperation following elective colorectal surgery in a matched cohort.

methodsPopulation-based retrospective multicentre cohort study of adult patients undergoing reoperation for a complication after an elective, non-centralized colorectal operation between 2006 and 2017 in 11 hospitals. Hospitals were divided into either HVHs (3 hospitals, median ≥126 resections per year) or LVHs (8 hospitals, <126 resections per year). Patients were propensity score-matched (PSM) for baseline characteristics as well as indication and type of elective surgery. Primary outcome was FTR.

resultsA total of 6428 and 3020 elective colorectal resections were carried out in HVHs and LVHs, of which 217 (3.4%) and 165 (5.5%) underwent reoperation (P < 0.001), respectively. After PSM, 142 patients undergoing reoperation remained in both HVH and LVH groups for final analyses. FTR rate was 7.7% in HVHs and 10.6% in LVHs (P = 0.410). The median Comprehensive Complication Index was 21.8 in HVHs and 29.6 in LVHs (P = 0.045). There was no difference in median ICU-free days, length of stay, the risk for permanent ostomy or overall survival between the groups.

conclusionThe reoperation rate and postoperative complication burden was higher in LVHs with no significant difference in FTR compared with HVHs.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsColorectal SurgeryAdultCohort StudiesHospitals, High-VolumeHumansPropensity ScoreReoperation

Identifiers

PMID38597158
PMCPMC11004787
OpenAlexW4394696330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.