ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2008
Comparison of immediate surgical outcomes between posterior pelvic exenteration and standard resection for primary rectal cancer: a matched case-control study.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rectal cancer: a review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of IranReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine the immediate surgical outcome and recovery of bowel function following posterior pelvic exenteration (PPE) for primary rectal cancer with suspected local invasion to the female internal reproductive organs, in comparison with a case-control series of standard resection for primary rectal cancer.
methodsWe analyzed 10 consecutive female patients undergoing PPE for the aforementioned indication between December 2003 and May 2006 in a single institution. Data were prospectively collected during hospitalization, including patient demographics, tumor- and operation-related variables and early surgical outcomes. These patients were compared with a group of female patients, matched for age, co-morbidity and location of tumor, who underwent standard resection for primary rectal cancer in the same period (non PPE group).
resultsIn the PPE group, pathological reports showed direct invasion of the reproductive organs in 4 cases and an involvement of lymph nodes in 7 cases. A sphincter-saving operation was performed in each case. Operative time was longer (274 min vs 157 min, P < 0.001) and blood loss was greater (769 mL vs 203 mL, P = 0.008) in the PPE group. Time to first bowel movement, time to first defecation, time to resumption of normal diet, and hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups. Postoperative complication rates were also similar.
conclusionPPE for rectal cancer was associated with longer operative time and increased blood loss, but did not compromise immediate surgical outcomes and postoperative bowel function compared to standard rectal resection.
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.