ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Intracorporeal vs. extracorporeal anastomosis preference for minimally invasive right hemicolectomy: A combined SAGES and EAES survey.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) for minimally invasive (MIS) right hemicolectomy is associated with lower rates of postoperative ileus, pain, and future ventral incisional hernia when compared to extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA). However, the rate of adoption of ICA has been slow. This may be attributed to the advanced minimally invasive intracorporeal suturing technical skills required for ICA. A survey was distributed among SAGES and EAES members to assess the current level of adoption of ICA into clinical practice.
methodsAn anonymous 13 question survey was distributed to SAGES and EAES members in 2023-2024 via email, SAGES Facebook, and SAGES Twitter/X. Response inclusion criteria included performing at least 20 minimally invasive segmental colectomies annually. Questions included year of surgical training completion, ICA vs. ECA preference with rationale, and ICA type of training and/or mentorship. A Chi-square test was used to compare the association between decade of training completion and use of ICA vs ECA.
results902 respondents participated and 796 performed at least 20 minimally invasive segmental colectomies per year. 457 (57%) were currently performing ICA for right hemicolectomies in over 80% of cases. Of these 457 respondents, over half reported several benefits when performing ICA vs ECA including less subjective pain (281, 64%) and lower rate of surgical site infections (274, 63%). When asked about the biggest hurdle to performing ICA, the 339 (43%) ECA preferred respondents selected added time and/or cost in the OR. There was no statistically significant association between the decade of training and choice of surgical technique (p = 0.829). DISCUSSION: Adoption of ICA for minimally invasive right hemicolectomy is on the rise in this predominantly advanced MIS group of surgeons, as it is routinely performed by over half of the SAGES and EAES membership. Operative time, cost, and additional training and mentorship are the barriers for wider adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40624421What 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.