ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2010
Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: The state of the art.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs.International journal of colorectal disease · 2016Pooled it
- Transition from laparoscopic to robotic approach in rectal cancer: a single-center short-term analysis based on the learning curve.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- The long-term oncological outcomes of the 140 robotic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a single surgeon experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2020Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of long-term outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2020Article
- An evidence-based medicine approach to the laparoscopic treatment of colorectal cancer.Fukushima journal of medical science · 2016Review
- Construct validity of a video-tracking system based on orthogonal cameras approach for objective assessment of laparoscopic skills.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2016Article
- Robotic surgery training: construct validity of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS).Journal of robotic surgery · 2016Article
- Transanal TATA/TME: a case-matched study of taTME versus laparoscopic TME surgery for rectal cancer.Techniques in coloproctology · 2016Article
- Face, content, and construct validity of the EndoViS training system for objective assessment of psychomotor skills of laparoscopic surgeons.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Construct validity and educational role for motion analysis in a laparoscopic trainer.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of short-term outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2015Article
- Learning curve for robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: use of the cumulative sum method.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
- The role of the robotic technique in minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer.Ecancermedicalscience · 2013Review
- Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2013Article
- Integration of transanal specimen extraction into laparoscopic anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a consecutive series of 179 patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
- Validation of a new box trainer-related tracking device: the TrEndo.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
At present time, there is evidence from randomized controlled studies of the success of laparoscopic resection for the treatment of colon cancer with reported smaller incisions, lower morbidity rate and earlier recovery compared to open surgery. Technical limitations and a steep learning curve have limited the wide application of mini-invasive surgery for rectal cancer. The present article discusses the current status of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. A review of the more recent retrospective, prospective and randomized controlled trial (RCT) data on laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer including the role of trans-anal endoscopic microsurgery and robotics was performed. A particular emphasis was dedicated to mid and low rectal cancers. Few prospective and RCT trials specifically addressing laparoscopic rectal cancer resection are currently available in the literature. Improved short-term outcomes in term of lesser intraoperative blood loss, reduced analgesic requirements and a shorter hospital stay have been demonstrated. Concerns have recently been raised in the largest RCT trial of the oncological adequacy of laparoscopy in terms of increased rate of circumferential margin. This data however was not confirmed by other prospective comparative studies. Moreover, a similar local recurrence rate has been reported in RCT and comparative series. Similar findings of overall and disease free survival have been reported but the follow-up time period is too short in all these studies and the few RCT trials currently available do not draw any definitive conclusions. On the basis of available data in the literature, the mini-invasive approach to rectal cancer surgery has some short-term advantages and does not seem to confer any disadvantage in term of local recurrence. With respect to long-term survival, a definitive answer cannot be given at present time as the results of RCT trials focused on long-term survival currently ongoing are still to fully clarify this issue.
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.