ArticleSurgical endoscopy2011
Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a case-matched study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Similarities and differences between study designs in short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, case-matched, and cohort studies.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2021Review
- Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for total abdominal colectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Current status of laparoscopy for the treatment of rectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- Case-matched comparison of the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.Surgery today · 2014Article
- Influence of neoadjuvant radiotherapy on anastomotic leak after restorative resection for rectal cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2012Article
- Laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer: effects of conversion on long-term oncologic outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2012Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe field of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is expanding. We compare short-term and early oncological outcomes after laparoscopic versus open resection in carefully matched rectal cancer patients.
methodsAll consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer were reviewed. Laparoscopic resections were matched 1:1 to open resections by age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, body mass index, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and type of surgery. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact, chi-square, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and Kaplan-Meier estimates. P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsNinety-one rectal cancer patients with laparoscopic resection were included, 59% were male, and median age was 62 years. Conversion rate was 18.7%. Laparoscopic and open surgery had similar 30-day morbidity and mortality except wound infection, which was lower for the laparoscopic group (p = 0.02). Laparoscopic surgery had similar 30-day readmissions but shorter total length of hospital stay (5 versus 7 days, p < 0.01), time to first flatus (3 versus 4.5 days, p = 0.001), and time to first bowel movement (4 versus 5 days, p = 0.05) when compared with open surgery. The 3-year disease-free survival, local recurrence, and distant recurrence rates were also similar between the two groups.
conclusionLaparoscopic surgery can be safely performed for rectal cancer, with better postoperative recovery and acceptable early oncological outcomes. Results from large ongoing randomized trials with longer follow-up time are pending to better define oncologic outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20585962What 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.