ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Minimally invasive converted to open versus upfront open surgeries for rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive surgery (MIS) has significantly better short-term outcomes than open surgery. However, it is unclear whether MIS converted (MISC) to open for rectal cancer carries any benefits compared to open as no prior study has compared these two surgical approaches for rectal cancer. This study compares short-term postoperative outcomes between MISC and upfront open surgery.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study on elective surgeries for rectal cancer from 2016 and 2022 from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Patients were divided into the MISC group and the Open group and balanced using propensity-score matching. 30-day complication, unplanned readmission, and mortality rates and length of stays were compared with Student's t-test and regression models.
resultsThe Open group included 2551 (86.3%) patients, and the MISC group included 406 (13.7%) patients (80.5% laparoscopy, 19.5% robotic). Propensity-score matching yielded 400 patients in each group. On univariate analysis, the groups had comparable overall complications, unplanned readmission, and 30-day mortality rates, but the MISC group had a lower median length of stay (6 days vs. 7 days, p = 0.015). On regression analysis, the MISC was not associated with an increased risk for overall complications (OR = 1.04, 95%CI 0.843-1.280; p = 0.716), unplanned readmission (OR = 1.230, 95%CI 0.939-1.620; p = 0.132), and 30-day mortality (OR = 1.750 95%CI 0.648-4750; p = 0.269). However, MISC was significantly associated with a shorter length of stay (OR = - 0.869, 95%CI (-)1.609 - (-)0.129; p = 0.021).
conclusionPatients undergoing planned open proctectomy and those undergoing MISC to open proctectomy exhibit similar 30-day postoperative outcomes. As completed MIS offers advantages over open surgeries, MIS should be attempted as the default surgical approach for rectal cancer patients, even if conversion to open surgery is needed.
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.