Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17054246›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

S Breukink, J Pierie, T Wiggers

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02086123 (Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Use of Perioperative Epidural Analgesia to Conventional Intravenous Narcotics and NSAIDS for Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection), which is not on this map. Cited by 99 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT02086123 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2012, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Use of Perioperative Epidural Analgesia to Conventional Intravenous Narcotics and NSAIDS for Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, IrvineRan2012 to 2015Enrolled87ConditionsPain, PostoperativeArmsEpidural Analgesia, Parenteral Analgesia (Intravenous)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

99 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 288 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Mid-Low Rectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Guideline
  10. Laparoscopic surgery for cancer: a systematic review and a way forward.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2010
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

S BreukinkGroningen University Hospital, Dept. of Surg., Hanzeplein 1, 9700 RB, Groningen, Netherlands. s.breukink@planet.nl
J Pierie
T Wiggers
Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLHanze University of Applied Sciences · NLMedisch Centrum Leeuwarden · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBecause definitive long-term results are not yet available, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer remains controversial. However, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has been proposed to have several short-term advantages in comparison with open total mesorectal excision (OTME).

objectivesTo evaluate whether there are any relevant differences in safety and efficacy after elective LTME, for the resection of rectal cancer, compared with OTME. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Current Contents from 1990 to December 2005. Searches were conducted using MESH terms: "laparoscopy", "minimally invasive","colorectal neoplasms". Furthermore we used the following text words: laparoscopy, surgical procedures, minimally invasive, rectal cancer, rectal carcinoma, rectal adenocarcinoma, rectal neoplasms, anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection, total mesorectal excision. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials and case series comparing LTME versus OTME. Furthermore case reports which describe LTME were also included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed study quality. All relevant studies have been categorized according to the evidence they provide according to the guidelines for "Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation" supplied by the "Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine". Disagreements were solved by discussion. MAIN

results80 studies were identified of which 48 studies, representing 4224 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality of most of the included studies was poor; three studies were grade 1b (individual randomised trial), 12 grade 2b (individual cohort study), 5 grade 3b (individual case-control study) and 28 grade 4 (case-series). As only one RCT described primary outcome, 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival rates, no meta-analyses could be performed. No significant differences in terms of disease-free survival rate, local recurrence rate, mortality, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, resection margins, or recovered lymph nodes were found. There is evidence that LTME results in less blood loss, quicker return to normal diet, less pain, less narcotic use and less immune response. It seems likely that LTME is associated with longer operative time and higher costs. No results of quality of life were reported. AUTHORS'

conclusionsBased on evidence mainly from non-randomized studies, LTME appears to have clinically measurable short-term advantages in patients with primary resectable rectal cancer. The long-term impact on oncological endpoints awaits the findings from large on-going randomized trials.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyElective Surgical ProceduresHumansRectal NeoplasmsRectumTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID17054246
OpenAlexW2151118429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.