Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15457376›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2004

Laparoscopic resection of colon Cancer: consensus of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES).

R Veldkamp, M Gholghesaei, H J Bonjer, D W Meijer, M Buunen, J Jeekel, B Anderberg, M A Cuesta, A Cuschierl, A Fingerhut and 15 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 112 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
112citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

112 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 267 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

52 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors at 17 institutions in 9 countries.

R VeldkampDepartment of General Surgery, Erasmus MC, P. O. Box 2040, 3000, Rotterdam, CA, The Netherlands.
M Gholghesaei
H J Bonjer
D W Meijer
M Buunen
J Jeekel
B Anderberg
M A Cuesta
A Cuschierl
A Fingerhut
J W Fleshman
P J Guillou
E Haglind
J Himpens
C A Jacobi
J J Jakimowicz
F Koeckerling
A M Lacy
E Lezoche
J R Monson
M Morino
E Neugebauer
S D Wexner
R L Whelan
European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)
Erasmus MC · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NLAmsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLAZ Sint-Blasius · BECentre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy · FRCleveland Clinic Florida · USColumbia University · USHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DELinköping University · SENinewells Hospital · GBSahlgrenska University Hospital · SESt James's University Hospital · GBUniversity of Cologne · DEUniversity of Hull · GBUniversity of Turin · ITWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) initiated a consensus development conference on the laparoscopic resection of colon cancer during the annual congress in Lisbon, Portugal, in June 2002.

methodsA systematic review of the current literature was combined with the opinions, of experts in the field of colon cancer surgery to formulate evidence-based statements and recommendations on the laparoscopic resection of colon cancer.

resultsAdvanced age, obesity, and previous abdominal operations are not considered absolute contraindications for laparoscopic colon cancer surgery. The most common cause for conversion is the presence of bulky or invasive tumors. Laparoscopic operation takes longer to perform than the open counterpart, but the outcome is similar in terms of specimen size and pathological examination. Immediate postoperative morbidity and mortality are comparable for laparoscopic and open colonic cancer surgery. The laparoscopically operated patients had less postoperative pain, better-preserved pulmonary function, earlier restoration of gastrointestinal function, and an earlier discharge from the hospital. The postoperative stress response is lower after laparoscopic colectomy. The incidence of port site metastases is <1%. Survival after laparoscopic resection of colon cancer appears to be at least equal to survival after open resection. The costs of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer are higher than those for open surgery.

conclusionLaparoscopic resection of colon cancer is a safe and feasible procedure that improves short-term outcome. Results regarding the long-term survival of patients enrolled in large multicenter trials will determine its role in general surgery.

Indexed as

ColectomyColonic NeoplasmsColonoscopesColonoscopyContraindicationsEuropeHumansSocieties, Medical

Identifiers

PMID15457376
OpenAlexW2064511605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.