ArticleSurgical endoscopy2006
Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a prospective analysis of thirty-month follow-up outcomes in 312 patients.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.
- Abdominal surgery in patients with essential thrombocythemia: A case report and systematic review of literature.Medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Clinical risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Pooled it
- Robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: technique and short-term outcome for 29 consecutive patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2011Trial
- Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2008Trial
- Total Mesorectal Excision vs. Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery Followed by Radiotherapy for T2N0M0 Distal Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Trial.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Predicting the level of difficulty of the double-stapling technique in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Comparison of early experience of robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision using propensity score matching.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Transanal Tube Drainage as a Conservative Treatment for Anastomotic Leakage Following a Rectal Resection.Annals of coloproctology · 2018Article
- Influence of multiple stapler firings used for rectal division on colorectal anastomotic leak rate.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Current Status and Future Perspectives.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2017Review
- Laparoscopic vs open abdominoperineal resection in the multimodality management of low rectal cancers.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Article
- Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for extraperitoneal rectal cancer: long-term results.International journal of colorectal disease · 2014Article
- The safety of a "fast-track" program after laparoscopic colorectal surgery is comparable in older patients as in younger patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
- Robotic total mesorectal excision: operative technique and review of the literature.Techniques in coloproctology · 2013Review
- Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: where do we stand?World journal of gastroenterology · 2012Review
- Oncologic Outcomes of a Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy for Colon Cancer: Results of a 3-Year Follow-up.Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology · 2012Article
- Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: review of published literature 2000-2009.Surgery today · 2011Review
- The technique of single-stage totally robotic low anterior resection.Journal of robotic surgery · 2011Article
- Robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched study.Surgical endoscopy · 2011Article
- Urinary and sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment.Nature reviews. Urology · 2011Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to prospectively evaluate operative safety and mid-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection performed by a single surgeon.
methodsThree hundreds twelve patients (male, 181) were enrolled in this analysis. 257 patients (82.4%) had tumors located below 12 cm from the anal verge. Distribution of TNM stages was 0:I:II:III:IV = 4.2%:17.9%:32.4%:37.2%:8.3%. 225 patients (71.1%) had T3/T4 lesions. Pre- and post-operative radiation was given in 6 and 20 patients, respectively.
resultsSphincter-preserving operation was performed in 85.9%. Mean operating time was 212 minutes. Conversion rate was 2.6%. Overall morbidity rate was 21.1%. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 6.4%. Operative mortality rate was 0.3%. Mean number of harvested nodes was 23. Mean distal tumor-free margin was 2.8 cm. The circumferential resection margin was positive in 13 patients (4.2%). With a mean follow-up of 30 months in the stage I-III patients, the local recurrence rate was 2.9%. Systemic recurrence occurred in 11.7%. No port-site recurrence was observed.
conclusionLaparoscopic resection of rectal cancer provided safe operative parameters and adequate mid-term oncologic outcomes. When considering a high volume of advanced and low-lying cancers but rather narrow indication to radiotherapy, the 2.9% local recurrence rate seems promising data. Long-term follow-up is mandatory to draw conclusion.
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.