Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18425886›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008

Long-term results of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection.

E Kuhry, W F Schwenk, R Gaupset, U Romild, H J Bonjer

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
223citing papers in PubMed, 29 pooled it
13.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

223 citing papers in PubMed, 29 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 518 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018
    Guideline
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

E KuhryNord-Trøndelag Health Trust, Namsos Hospital, Department of General Surgery, Sykehusalleen 1, Namsos, Norway, 7800. esther.kuhry@gmail.com
W F Schwenk
R Gaupset
U Romild
H J Bonjer
Namsos Hospital · NOCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEErasmus MC · NLSt Olav's University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

LaparoscopyColonic NeoplasmsHernia, VentralHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRectal Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID18425886
PMCPMC7017639
OpenAlexW1525587965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.