Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40134479›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2025

Surgical Approach and Variation in Long-Term Survival Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery Using Instrumental Variable Analysis.

Cody Lendon Mullens, Sarah Sheskey, Edward C Norton, Jyothi R Thumma, Hari Nathan, Scott E Regenbogen, Kyle H Sheetz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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.

Cody Lendon MullensFrom the Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Sarah SheskeyCenter for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Edward C NortonUM National Clinician Scholars Program, Ann Arbor, MI.
Jyothi R ThummaCenter for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Hari NathanFrom the Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Scott E RegenbogenFrom the Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Kyle H SheetzFrom the Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Funding

Rapid Adoption of Robotic Surgery: Risks, Benefits, and Unintended ConsequencesR01DK131584 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Kyle Hershey Sheetz · 2022 to 2026
$2.6M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK131584
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The study aimed to determine whether increased use of minimally invasive surgical approaches, compared with open, improves long-term survival after colon and rectal cancer resections. Background: Existing prospective and observational data comparing surgical approach for colon and rectal cancer are limited by selection bias, necessitating better approaches for causal inference to understand the relationship between surgical approach and long-term survival. Methods: We included colon and rectal cancer patients who underwent colon or rectal resection from the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database between 2011 and 2018. Using an instrumental variable (IV) approach, we accounted for measured and unmeasured differences between patients undergoing colon or rectal cancer resection based on operative approach - robotic, laparoscopic, or open. The IV used in this study was rate of robotic-assisted colon and rectal cancer surgery within 81 different hospital regions based on US Census region and rurality during the 12 months before each patient's operation. Proportional hazard modeling was used to estimate risk-adjusted mortality rates. Results: There were 326,406 colon and 96,979 rectal cancer patients included in this study. The risk-adjusted 5-year cumulative incidence of mortality for colon and rectal cancer was highest for patients who underwent open approaches (35.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 35.37-36.1] and 39.27 [95% CI: 28.44-30.13], respectively), compared with lower mortality for those undergoing laparoscopic (28.91 [95% CI: 28.55-29.27] and 22.93 [95% CI: 22.11-23.78], respectively) and robotic approaches (26.39 [95% CI: 24.51-28.42] and 19.77 [95% CI: 17.32-22.43], respectively). Growth in utilization of minimally invasive approaches outpaced improvements in long-term survival. Conclusions: Patients undergoing minimally invasive surgical approaches for colon and rectal cancer had improved long-term survival. However, long-term survival changes did not correlate with the large expansion of minimally invasive approaches, which suggests that growing these approaches is not a viable strategy to improve long-term patient outcomes.

Indexed as

colon cancercolorectal surgerylong-term survivalrectal cancerrobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID40134479
PMCPMC11932609

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.