Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21792713›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2012

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a matched case-control study of short-term outcomes.

Ramakrishnan Ayloor Seshadri, Ayyappan Srinivasan, Ritesh Tapkire, Rajaraman Swaminathan

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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 · 2014
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ramakrishnan Ayloor SeshadriDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute (WIA), Annexe Campus, No.18, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai, 600036, India. ram_a_s@yahoo.com
Ayyappan Srinivasan
Ritesh Tapkire
Rajaraman Swaminathan
Cancer Institute (WIA) · INApollo Hospitals · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedBlood Loss, SurgicalCase-Control StudiesChemotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedRadiotherapy, AdjuvantRectal NeoplasmsSurgical Wound DehiscenceSurgical Wound InfectionTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21792713
OpenAlexW2089577844

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.