ArticleBJS open2026
Costs associated with anastomotic leak after left-sided colorectal surgery: retrospective real-world study in England.
Article in BJS open, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnastomotic leak (AL) is a serious postoperative complication following colorectal surgery (CS). This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between patients with and without AL after left-sided CS to highlight the significant burden of AL, and to address the evidence gap regarding its economic impact in England.
methodsThis was a retrospective matched cohort study of patients with and without AL after left-sided CS. Data for adult patients undergoing CS between 2018 and 2021 in England were drawn from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. Patients with and without AL after left-sided CS were exactly matched 1 : 1 on age, sex, surgery date and type, and indication. Comparative analyses were conducted on patients with versus without AL, as well as on patients with minor and major AL versus those without AL. The primary objective was to compare all-cause costs for hospitalization; secondary outcomes were to determine AL incidence rates, baseline characteristics of those with AL (major and minor) versus those without, and the implications of AL in terms of interventions and length of hospital stay (LOS). Multivariate models were adjusted for the Charlson co-morbidity index and geographical region.
resultsOf 36 948 adult patients who underwent left-sided CS with anastomosis without stoma formation, after excluding those with bleeding complications, 2059 patients with AL and 27 590 without AL were identified. After exact matching, there were 1982 patients in each group. Among patients with AL, 1116 had major AL and 866 had minor AL. AL was associated with a significantly higher mean all-cause inpatient cost (adjusted difference €11 728; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) €10 313 to €13 209; P < 0.001). Patients with AL also had a significantly higher mean cumulative LOS (adjusted difference 15.93 days; 95% c.i. 14.24 to 17.61 days; P < 0.001). The estimated incidence of AL requiring intervention was 5.6%. Patients with any AL had significantly more mean all-cause hospitalizations (adjusted difference 0.37; 95% c.i. 0.26 to 0.49; P < 0.001) and higher cumulative LOS (adjusted difference 15.93; 95% c.i. 14.24 to 17.61; P < 0.001) than patients without AL.
conclusionAL is associated with poorer clinical outcomes, increased HCRU, and a substantial economic burden.
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.