SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Emergency minimally invasive versus open left-sided colonic resection for complicated diverticulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmergency surgery for complicated diverticulitis carries substantial morbidity and mortality. Whether minimally invasive approaches offer advantages over open surgery in this urgent setting remains uncertain. We synthesized contemporary evidence comparing emergency minimally invasive versus open left-sided colonic resection for complicated diverticulitis.
methodsFollowing PRISMA 2020 guidelines and a prospectively registered protocol, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through July 2025. We included comparative studies of emergency minimally invasive versus open colectomy for complicated diverticulitis (Hinchey II-IV). Random-effects meta-analysis with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment was performed. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I at the outcome level, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
resultsSix studies encompassing 9,637 patients (1,821 minimally invasive, 7,816 open) met inclusion criteria. Minimally invasive surgery was associated with lower 30-day mortality (4.5% vs. 8.7%; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40-0.59; P = 0.0002; I²=0%; low certainty); this estimate derived 86.9% of its weight from one database study and was no longer statistically significant when that study was excluded (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.35-1.06). Major complications did not differ significantly (15.2% vs. 17.7%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36-1.08; P = 0.10; very low certainty). Length of stay was shorter (MD - 2.55 days, 95% CI - 4.37 to - 0.74; P = 0.02) and incisional surgical site infection rates were lower (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.12-0.75; P = 0.02), though operative time was longer (MD + 18.27 min, 95% CI 0.89-35.64; P = 0.04). Reoperation rates were similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78-1.22).
conclusionsEmergency minimally invasive resection was associated with lower 30-day mortality and shorter hospital stay, without conclusive evidence of fewer major complications. The mortality estimate derived most of its statistical weight from one large database study; after excluding that study, the point estimate remained favorable but imprecise. Overall certainty was low to very low, so these findings are hypothesis-generating rather than practice-changing. Minimally invasive resection may be considered in hemodynamically stable, selected patients operated on by surgeons with advanced laparoscopic colorectal expertise, pending prospective validation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251142546.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42481998What 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.