Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21750927›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2011

Assessing appropriateness for elective colorectal cancer surgery: clinical, oncological, and quality-of-life short-term outcomes employing different treatment approaches.

Emilio Bertani, Antonio Chiappa, Roberto Biffi, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Davide Radice, Vittorio Branchi, Elena Cenderelli, Irene Vetrano, Sabine Cenciarelli, Bruno Andreoni

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2014
    Pooled it
  11. Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Surgical Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Rhode Island medical journal (2013) · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision: Is the future now?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021
    Review
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Emilio BertaniDivision of General and Laparoscopic Surgery, European Institute of Oncology, Via G. Ripamonti, 435, 20141, Milan, Italy. emilio.bertani@ieo.it
Antonio Chiappa
Roberto Biffi
Paolo Pietro Bianchi
Davide Radice
Vittorio Branchi
Elena Cenderelli
Irene Vetrano
Sabine Cenciarelli
Bruno Andreoni

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn recent years, colorectal cancer surgery has benefitted from new techniques such as laparoscopy and robotic surgery. However, many treatment disparities exist among different centers for patients affected by the same kind of tumors.

methodsForty-five (41%) open (OCO) vs. 30 (28%) laparoscopic (LCO) vs. 34 (31%) robotic-assisted (RCO) colectomies and 34 (40%) open (ORR) vs. 52 (60%) robotic (ROR) rectal resections performed during a 15-month period, in elective setting, were compared. Patients presenting contraindications for minimally invasive procedures were excluded from the study, so that all the enrolled patients were suitable for either of the surgical procedures.

resultsOverall morbidity rates were similar among groups. Perioperative mortality was nil. No significant differences were noted as for total number of lymph nodes harvested between arms. Mean time (days) to first bowel movement to gas was 3.3 vs. 2.3 vs. 2.6 for OCO, LCO, and RCO, respectively (p < 0.001), and 3.3 vs. 2.0 for ORR and ROR, respectively (p = 0.003). Among several European Organization in Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 functional scales considered only physical functioning was significantly better at 30 days for RCO vs. OCO (96.3 ± 10 RCO vs. 85.5 ± 12.6 OCO; p = 0.015). Robotic surgery was much more expensive in comparison to open as well as laparoscopic procedures.

conclusionsLaparoscopic and robotic surgeries for colorectal cancer present both the same advantages in comparison to open procedures in terms of faster recovery. However, our data do not seem to support the routine use of RCO as a cost-effective procedure.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsColorectal SurgeryCosts and Cost AnalysisElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMaleMesenteric Artery, InferiorMiddle AgedTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21750927

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.