ArticleJournal of Cancer2011
A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy-assisted and conventional open surgery for colorectal cancer.
Article in Journal of Cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medial versus lateral approach in laparoscopic colorectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of surgery · 2013Pooled it
- Three-dimensionalIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Pooled it
- Article
- Surgical and Oncological Outcome of Laparoscopic Resection of Colorectal Cancers: A Single-Center Experience.Cureus · 2024Article
- Immediate Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Non-Metastatic Colon Cancer: Phase I Trial Evaluating a Novel Treatment Protocol.Clinical colorectal cancer · 2022Article
- Association of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy on the long-term health-related quality of life of colon cancer survivors.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Early Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery Reduces Postdischarge Emergency Department Visits.Diseases of the colon and rectum · 2020Article
- Total Mesorectal Excision Technique-Past, Present, and Future.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020Review
- Laparoscopic and open surgery in rectal cancer patients in Germany: short and long-term results of a large 10-year population-based cohort.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer remains underutilized in Germany despite its nationwide application over the last decade.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Inequalities in Implementation and Different Outcomes During the Growth of Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery in England: A National Population-Based Study from 2002 to 2012.World journal of surgery · 2018Article
- Plasma levels of the proangiogenic protein CXCL16 remains elevated for 1 month after minimally invasive colorectal cancer resection.World journal of surgical oncology · 2018Article
- Perioperative Factors Predicting Prolonged Postoperative Ileus After Major Abdominal Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2018Article
- Incidence and risk factors for venous thromboembolism after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.Haematologica · 2015Article
- Surgery for small-bowel neuroendocrine tumors: is there any benefit of the laparoscopic approach?Surgical endoscopy · 2014Article
- The rationale behind complete mesocolic excision (CME) and a central vascular ligation for colon cancer in open and laparoscopic surgery : proceedings of a consensus conference.International journal of colorectal disease · 2014Article
- National outcomes and uptake of laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer in England.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
- Preoperative intestinal stent decompression with primary laparoscopic surgery to treat left-sided colorectal cancer with obstruction: a report of 21 cases.Cancer biology & medicine · 2013Article
- Laparoscopy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer reduces short-term morbidity: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.United European gastroenterology journal · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the short- and long-term results of laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS) and conventional open surgery (OCRS) for colorectal cancer (CRC).
methodsWe searched relevant papers published between January 1990 and May 2011. We analyzed the outcomes of each type of surgery over the short- and long-term periods.
resultsIn the short-term period, we found no significant differences in overall perioperative complications and anastomotic leakage between LCRS and OCRS groups. We found no significant differences in overall, distant, local and wound-site recurrence, overall mortality, 3 and 5 year disease-free survival rate, and cancer-related mortality between the 2 groups.
conclusionsLCRS has the benefits of reducing intraoperative blood loss, earlier resumption of oral intake, and shorter duration of hospital stay in the short-term. The long-term outcomes of LCRS seem to be similar to those of OCRS.
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.