ReviewCureus2025
Minimally Invasive Versus Conventional Colectomy: Evaluating Clinical Outcomes, Complications, and Recovery in Modern Surgical Practice.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive colectomy (MIC) has transformed colorectal surgery by improving recovery, reducing morbidity, and enhancing postoperative quality of life, yet variations in clinical outcomes, learning curves, and cost-effectiveness continue to challenge universal adoption. This systematic review synthesized current evidence comparing MIC and open colectomy (OC) across clinical, functional, and economic outcomes, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A structured search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL identified randomized controlled trials, multicenter cohorts, and meta-analyses published between 2015 and 2025. Studies were included only if they compared MIC and OC in adults (≥18 years) and reported extractable quantitative outcomes. Across eligible studies, MIC demonstrated a mean reduction in hospital length of stay (LOS) of approximately two to three days, an effect size ranging from 0.45 to 0.62 for postoperative morbidity reduction, and a 40-60% decrease in intraoperative blood loss, while maintaining comparable oncologic parameters to OC. Integration with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols further improved bowel recovery, mobilization, and discharge timelines without increasing complications. Risk-of-bias assessments using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale indicated predominantly low-risk evidence, strengthening confidence in the findings. Inclusion of elderly and emergency populations demonstrated that MIC remains safe and reproducible across complex settings. Although robotic colectomy increases operative time and cost, these drawbacks are offset by accelerated recovery and reduced readmissions. Collectively, the quantitatively reinforced evidence supports the growing role of MIC, particularly when combined with ERAS principles, as an efficient and patient-centered approach in modern colorectal practice.
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.