Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19851807›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2010

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

P Denoya, H Wang, D Sands, J Nogueras, E Weiss, Steven D Wexner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Laparoscopic versus open surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2014
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Factors associated with conversion from laparoscopic to open colectomy using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2015
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

P DenoyaDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Blvd, 2950, Weston, Fl 33331, USA.
H Wang
D Sands
J Nogueras
E Weiss
Steven D Wexner

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in mid and lower rectal cancers following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT).

backgroundThe laparoscopic approach for colon cancer has been widely accepted. A few studies have shown that there are advantages of laparoscopic over open TME surgery for rectal cancer. However, the role of laparoscopy has not been clearly defined specifically in cases following nCRT.

methodsAll patients with rectal cancer who underwent nCRT were identified; no operations for rectal carcinoma were performed laparoscopically between 1997 and 2005. The laparoscopic cases were matched to open cases based on gender, procedure, age, and body mass index (BMI). The medical records were reviewed and short-term outcome was compared between these two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 15 software.

resultsBetween 2002 and 2008, 64 patients were identified, including 32 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery and 32 who had a laparotomy. There was no difference between the two groups based on gender, procedure, age, BMI or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification. The procedures performed within each group included 8 abdominoperineal resections and 24 anterior resections, which included 20 colonic J-pouch-anal anastomoses and 4 straight coloanal anastomoses. In the laparoscopic group, 12 patients underwent totally laparoscopic operations, 12 were either laparoscopic-assisted or hand-assisted procedures, and 8 were converted to laparotomy. The reasons for conversion included bleeding, splenic injury, and difficult anatomy. There were no differences in comorbidities, tumor location, tumor size, tumor stage or radiation dose between the two groups. Operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (267 + or - 76 versus 205 + or - 49 min, p < 0.001). Operative blood loss, complication rate, and mortality rate were all similar between the two groups. However, the laparoscopic group benefited from shorter length of stay (6.1 + or - 2.4 versus 7.6 + or - 2.3 days, p = 0.012), earlier first bowel movement (1.9 + or - 1 versus 3.3 + or - 2.4 days, p = 0.006), and shorter time to regular diet (3.9 + or - 2.1 versus 5.8 + or - 2.5 days, p = 0.003). There was no difference in lymph node harvest (both positive node harvest and total lymph node harvest), distal margin or radial margin.

conclusionsIn our experience, laparoscopic TME for mid and lower rectal cancer is feasible and safe. Patients benefit from the short-term advantages of laparoscopy, including shorter length of hospital stay, time to tolerating a regular diet, and time to first bowel movement or stoma function. Although there were no short-term differences in oncologic parameters, the long-term oncologic outcome requires further investigation.

Indexed as

Feasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLaparotomyLength of StayLymph Node ExcisionMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm StagingPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRadiographyRectal NeoplasmsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

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.