ArticleSurgery in practice and science2023
A comparison of open or laparoscopic colectomy outcomes for the management of ischemic colitis using the ACS-NSQIP database.
Article in Surgery in practice and science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient characteristics, antibiotic use, and in-hospital outcomes in patients with ischaemic colitis: A nationwide retrospective cohort study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026Article
- National trends in utilization and outcomes of elective open and minimally invasive colostomy reversal: A NSQIP analysis.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Ischemic colitis is a common manifestation of intestinal ischemia and is potentially a surgical emergency. Although such surgical emergencies were historically approached via open exploration, it is uncertain if there is a role for minimally invasive techniques. This study compares open vs laparoscopic colectomy techniques in the management of ischemic colitis. Methods: Using the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, patients with ischemic colitis undergoing colectomy from 2005 to 2019 were compared. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day mortality. Additional outcomes of interest were procedure related readmission, procedure related reoperation, length of stay, surgical site infections (SSI), septic shock, and other complications. Outcomes of interest were compared using multivariate logistic regression. Results: 7,928 patients had ischemic colitis with 7,209 undergoing open colectomy and 719 undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. The mortality rate was significantly lower using a laparoscopic approach compared to open (6.4% vs 26%, Discussion: 30-day postoperative mortality was significantly lower using a laparoscopic. Patients that had a laparoscopic colectomy had shorter hospital stays. While patients that underwent laparoscopic procedures tended to be less sick, multivariate analysis showed decreased rates of sepsis and surgical site infections compared to open colectomies when correcting for these factors. Conclusion: Laparoscopic colectomy may be a better surgical approach for patients with ischemic colitis compared to open colectomy.
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.