SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008
Long-term results of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 223 papers, 29 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
223 citing papers in PubMed, 29 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 518 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emergency minimally invasive versus open left-sided colonic resection for complicated diverticulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Transvaginal specimen extraction in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2024 for the treatment of colorectal cancer.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Guideline
- Incisional hernia incidence following laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Preoperative combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic abdominal surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Pooled it
- Redo-laparoscopy in the management of complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical outcomes.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- Closure of stoma site with or without prophylactic mesh reinforcement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in male urogenital function preservation, a meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2018Pooled it
- Laparoscopic Versus Open Transverse Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2018Pooled it
- Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018Guideline
- Gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic abdominal surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Small bowel obstruction and incisional hernia after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of comparative trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Pooled it
- Systematic review with meta-analysis of studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic colectomy and multiport laparoscopic colectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Incisional Hernia Rates After Laparoscopic or Open Abdominal Surgery-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2016Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2016Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis for laparoscopic versus open colon surgery with or without an ERAS programme.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Pooled it
163 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough minimally invasive surgery has been accepted for a variety of disorders, laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer is performed by few. Concern about oncological radicality and long term outcome has limited the adoption of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.
objectivesTo determine long-term outcome after laparoscopically-assisted versus open surgery for non-metastasised colorectal cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane library, EMBASE, Pub med and Cancer Lit were searched for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing laparoscopically-assisted and open surgery for non-metastasised colorectal cancer were included. Studies that did not report any long-term outcomes were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the studies and extracted data. RevMan 4.2 was used for statistical analysis. MAIN
resultsThirty-three randomised clinical trials (RCT) comparing laparoscopically-assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer were identified. Twelve of these trials, involving 3346 patients, reported long-term outcome and were included in the current analysis. No significant differences in the occurrence of incisional hernia, reoperations for incisional hernia or reoperations for adhesions were found between laparoscopically assisted and open surgery (2 RCT, 474 pts, 7.9% vs 10.9%;P = 0.32 and 2 RCT, 474 pts, 4.0% vs 2.8%; P = 0.42 and 1 RCT, 391 pts, 1.1% vs 2.5%;P = 0.30, respectively). Rates of recurrence at the site of the primary tumor were similar (colon cancer: 4 RCT, 938 pts, 5.2% vs 5.6%; OR (fixed) 0.84 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.52)(P = 0.57); rectal cancer: 4 RCT, 714 pts, 7.2% vs 7.7%; OR (fixed) 0.81 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.43) (P = 0.46). No differences in the occurrence of port-site/wound recurrences were observed (P=0.16). Similar cancer-related mortality was found after laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery ( colon cancer: 5 RCT, 1575 pts, 14.6% vs 16.4%; OR (fixed) 0.80 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.06) (P=0.15); rectal cancer: 3 RCT, 578 pts, 9.2% vs 10.0%; OR (fixed) 0.66 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.19) (P=0.16). Four studies were included in the meta-analyses on hazard ratios for tumour recurrence in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. No significant difference in recurrence rate was observed between laparoscopic and open surgery (hazard ratio for tumour recurrence in the laparoscopic group 0.92; 95% CI 0.76-1.13). No significant difference in tumour recurrence between laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer was observed (hazard ratio for tumour recurrence in the laparoscopic group 0.86; 95% CI 0.70-1.08). AUTHORS'
conclusionsLaparoscopic resection of carcinoma of the colon is associated with a long term outcome no different from that of open colectomy. Further studies are required to determine whether the incidence of incisional hernias and adhesions is affected by method of approach. Laparoscopic surgery for cancer of the upper rectum is feasible, but more randomised trials need to be conducted to assess long term outcome.
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.