ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Prognostic impact of postoperative management by an intensive care unit intensivist after colonic perforation.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors for infectious complications and postoperative outcomes of colorectal cancer patients with liver cirrhosis: a multicenter retrospective study.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Risk factors for anastomotic leakage and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic right colectomy: a multicenter study in a Japanese rural area.Surgery today · 2025Article
- The Usefulness of Robot-assisted Surgery for Elderly Colorectal Cancer Patients.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePostoperative management for colonic perforation is an important prognostic factor, but whether intensivists perform postoperative management varies between institutions.
methodsWe investigated 291 patients with colonic perforation between 2018 and 2022. Patients were divided into those managed by an intensivists (ICU group; n = 40) and those not managed by an intensivists (non-ICU group; n = 251). We examined how management by intensivists affected prognosis using inverse probability weighting, and clarified which patients should consult an intensivists.
resultsThe ICU group showed a significantly higher shock index (1.15 vs. 0.75, p < 0.01), higher APACHE II score (16.0 vs. 10.0, p < 0.001), and more severe comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index 5.0 vs. 1.0, p < 0.001) and general peritonitis (85% vs. 38%, p < 0.001). Adjusted risk differences were - 24% (-34% to -13%) for 6-month mortality rate. Six-month mortality was improved by ICU intensivist management in patients with general peritonitis (risk difference - 22.8; 95% confidence interval - 34 to -11); APACHE II score ≥20 (-0.79; -1.06 to -0.52); lactate ≥1.6 (-0.38; -0.57 to -0.29); shock index ≥1.0 (-40.01; -54.87 to -25.16); and catecholamine index ≥10 (-41.16; -58.13 to -24.19).
conclusionsIntensivists were involved in treating patients in poor general condition, but prognosis was extremely good. Appropriate case consultation with intensivists is important.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39453495What 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.