ArticleWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2026
Minimally invasive versus open emergency right-sided colectomy for malignant obstruction: a nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study.
Article in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive surgery (MIS) improves short-term outcomes in elective colectomy, however, the choice of surgical approach in hemodynamically stable patients with obstructing right-sided colon cancer remains unclear in emergency settings. MIS could be considered and the present study aims to evaluate short-term outcomes of MIS in bowel obstructed patients compared with open surgery (OPEN).
methodsA retrospective nationwide study including patients from the nationwide Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry (SCRCR) undergoing emergency right-sided colectomy in Sweden (2017-2023) was conducted. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed based on sex, age, ASA class, hospital size, and operative timing (on-call vs. daytime). Outcomes included length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and surgical quality indicators. Analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat.
resultsA total of 1147 patients were identified. Of the 1,147 included patients, 99 (8.6%) underwent an initially minimally invasive approach. After matching, 99 patients remained in each group. The conversion rate was 34%. Median LOS was 9 days (IQR 6;14) after OPEN and 6 days (IQR 5;10) after MIS. In quantile regression with bootstrap standard errors, MIS was associated with a 3-day shorter median LOS (median difference - 3.0 days, 95% CI - 4 to - 2, p = 0.002). Postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 2) occurred in 38.8% after OPEN and in 23.2% after MIS. Logistic regression analysis with robust standard errors showed significantly lower odds of postoperative complications after MIS (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.83, p = 0.009). No significant differences were observed in re-admission, 90-day mortality, R0 resection, lymph node yield, blood loss or operative time.
conclusionIn this nationwide observational cohort, an initially minimally invasive approach was associated with shorter length of stay and fewer postoperative complications. No statistically significant differences were observed in the available short-term surgical and pathological quality indicators. Given the limited number of MIS procedures and potential for residual confounding, these findings support further evaluation of MIS in carefully selected patients.
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.