ArticleSurgical endoscopy2012
Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a matched case-control study of short-term outcomes.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- The comprehensive therapeutic effects of rectal surgery are better in laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Oncotarget · 2017Pooled it
- Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Mid-Low Rectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2015Pooled it
- Laparoscopy for rectal cancer is oncologically adequate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Pooled it
- 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 · 2014Pooled it
- Short-term follow-up after laparoscopic versus conventional total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer in a large teaching hospital.International journal of colorectal disease · 2014Trial
- Effects of needlescopic surgery on postoperative pain in intersphincteric or abdominoperineal resection.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Article
- Lymph Node Harvest After Neoadjuvant Treatment for Rectal Cancer and Its Impact on Oncological Outcomes.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2020Article
- Laparoscopic Approach to Rectal Cancer-The New Standard?Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- Application of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision in locally advanced low rectal cancer.Chinese medical journal · 2015Article
- Current status of laparoscopy for the treatment of rectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- Laparoscopy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer reduces short-term morbidity: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.United European gastroenterology journal · 2013Article
- Oncological adequacy of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection: An audit in Indian perspective.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
- Gastrointestinal cancers in India: Treatment perspective.South Asian journal of cancerReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) currently is commonly incorporated into the multimodal treatment of locally advanced rectal cancers. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic and conventional open surgery for rectal cancer after nCRT.
methodsA series of 72 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery (Lap group) for rectal cancer after nCRT were matched for type of surgery, gender, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class with 72 patients who underwent conventional surgery during the same time period (Open group). The short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups of patients.
resultsNo significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of age, distance of tumor from the anal verge, body mass index, or posttreatment pathologic stage of the disease. There were significant differences between the Lap and Open groups in terms of blood loss (median: 200 vs 400 ml; P < 0.001), duration of surgery (median: 270 vs 240 min; P < 0.001), time to passing of first flatus (median: 2 vs 3 days; P < 0.001), time to start of normal diet (median: 5 vs 6 days; P < 0.001), and hospital stay (median: 12 vs 15 days; P < 0.001). A significant difference in the number of lymph nodes harvested was not identified between the two groups, although more patients in the Open group had a positive circumferential resection margin than in the Lap group (10 vs 1%; P = 0.03). The short-term benefits of laparoscopic surgery also were observed when the 64 patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR) in each of the two groups were compared separately.
conclusionLaparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, especially laparoscopic APR, after nCRT is safe and associated with earlier recovery of bowel function, a shorter hospital stay, and an oncologically adequate specimen compared with conventional open surgery.
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.