ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2026
A Tale of Two Pathways: Same-Surgeon Versus Different-Surgeon Resection After Second Surgical Opinion.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe role of second surgical opinions (SSOs) in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer care is not well-defined. While SSOs are common, the impact may depend on whether patients ultimately undergo resection with the same surgeon or with a different surgeon after the SSO. We sought to characterize perioperative outcomes relative to SSO among older adults with GI cancers.
methodsUsing SEER-Medicare data (2000-2019), patients aged 66-90 with primary GI were identified. Cancer-directed resections were categorized into three claims-observed pathways: surgery without SSO, SSO with same-surgeon resection, and SSO with different-surgeon resection. Multivariable regression models assessed the association between operative pathway and perioperative outcomes including complications, extended length of stay (LOS), 90-day readmission and mortality, discharge disposition, and achievement of a composite "textbook outcome."
resultsAmong 40,603 surgical patients, 56.2% underwent surgery without SSO, 5.3% underwent SSO with same-surgeon resection, and 38.5% underwent SSO with different-surgeon resection. Compared with no SSO, SSO followed by resection with a different surgeon was associated with lower odds of 90-day readmission (aOR 0.92, 95%CI 0.88-0.97), any complications (aOR 0.90, 95%CI 0.84-0.95), extended LOS (aOR 0.93, 95%CI 0.88-0.98), and mortality (aOR 0.67, 95%CI 0.58-0.78), as well as higher discharge-home (aOR 1.05, 95%CI 1.01-1.12) and textbook outcome (aOR 1.12, 95%CI 1.07-1.17). In contrast, SSO with same-surgeon resection was associated with higher complications (aOR 1.14, 95%CI 1.01-1.29), longer LOS (aOR 1.21, 95%CI1.09-1.35), and lower home discharge (aOR 0.77, 95%CI 0.70-0.85) with no survival advantage.
conclusionAmong older adults undergoing GI cancer surgery, SSO followed by resection with a different surgeon was associated with improved perioperative safety and recovery, whereas SSO followed by resection with the same surgeon was not associated with similar benefit. These findings suggest that the value of SSO may lie in its role as a pathway to a different surgical team when clinically appropriate.
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.