ArticleSurgical endoscopy2004
A comparison of the complication rates between laparoscopic colectomy and laparoscopic low anterior resection.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients: a comparison of laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic techniques.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Twenty years of countermeasures against postoperative methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections.Surgery today · 2011Article
- Wound infection after elective laparoscopic surgery for colorectal carcinoma.Surgical endoscopy · 2007Article
- C-reactive protein as early predictor for infectious postoperative complications in rectal surgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2007Article
- Reduction of prolonged postoperative hospital stay after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal carcinoma.Surgical endoscopy · 2006Article
- Intracorporeal rectal stapling following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: overcoming a challenge.Surgical endoscopy · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared the short-term outcomes, including the complication rate and minimum surgical invasiveness, between patients with colon and rectal carcinomas, who underwent laparoscopic surgery.
methodsA review evaluated 151 patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy (Lap-colectomy; n = 120) and laparoscopic low anterior resection (Lap-LAR; n = 31) between July 2001 and December 2003. The short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe mean operative time and blood loss were significantly greater in the Lap-LAR group. However, the complication rates and postoperative course between the two approaches were similar, and no anastomotic leakage was observed. There was no significant difference in the serum C-reactive protein level and white blood cell count between the two groups in the early postoperative period.
conclusionsLap-LAR for rectal carcinoma can be performed safely without increased morbidity or mortality, and its short-term benefits are comparable with those conferred by Lap-colectomy.
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.