ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2010
Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: short-term benefits and oncologic outcomes using more than one technique.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hand-assisted versus straight laparoscopy for colorectal surgery - a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Pooled it
- The prevalence of venous thromboembolism in rectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Pooled it
- Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: are we there yet?World journal of gastroenterology · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral minimally invasive techniques have now been described for rectal cancer resection. Current outcome data for these approaches from high volume, single institutions remain limited. Our aim was to review outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer at our institution in the current era.
methodsA retrospective analysis was done to assess short-term benefits and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer between 2004 and 2007.
resultsOne-hundred consecutive patients (61 men, median age 62) with a median follow-up of 1.8 years were identified. Sixty-seven had hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS), while 33 were done laparoscopic-assisted (LA). Seventy-two patients underwent anterior resection, 27 an abdominal perineal resection, and 1 a total proctocolectomy. Tumor stage was stage 1 (21%), stage 2 (17%), stage 3 (56%), and stage 4 (6%). A median of 16 lymph nodes, a median 3.4 cm distal margin, and a 99% negative circumferential margin was achieved. The 3-year disease-free and overall survivals were 86.2 and 94.5%, respectively. Three cases required conversion. Median time to both diet and first bowel movement was 3 days, and median length of stay was 5 days. Length of stay, time to soft diet, incision length, and pain scores were less using a LA approach compared to HALS (P < 0.01). Overall morbidity was 26% with no mortality.
conclusionBoth minimally invasive techniques used achieved excellent oncologic results in patients with rectal cancer. The LA approach had slightly better short-term outcomes.
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.