ReviewSurgery today2011
Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: review of published literature 2000-2009.
Review in Surgery today, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Laparoscopic permanent sigmoid stoma creation through the extraperitoneal route versus transperitoneal route. A meta-analysis of stoma-related complications.Saudi medical journal · 2015Pooled it
- Intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: a systematic review.Surgery today · 2013Pooled it
- The Multidisciplinary Approach of Rectal Cancer: The Experience of "COMRE Group" Model.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Preservation of superior rectal artery in laparoscopically assisted subtotal colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis for slow transit constipation.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Observational
- Risk Factors for Conversion and Morbidity During Initial Experience in Laparoscopic Proctectomies: a Retrospective Study.The Indian journal of surgery · 2017Article
- Single center cost analysis of single-port and conventional laparoscopic surgical treatment in colorectal malignant diseases.International journal of colorectal disease · 2017Article
- Higher risk of incomplete mesorectal excision and positive circumferential margin in low rectal cancer regardless of surgical technique.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2014Article
- Case-matched comparison of the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.Surgery today · 2014Article
- Functional outcomes and quality of life in patients treated with laparoscopic total colectomy for colonic inertia.Surgery today · 2014Article
- Laparoscopic surgery for obese patients with colon cancer: a case-matched control study.Surgery today · 2013Article
- Extraperitoneal colostomy in laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection using a laparoscopic retractor.Surgery today · 2013Review
- 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
- Use of a multi-instrument access device in abdominoperineal resections.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
- Clinical practice guidelines for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer: a consensus statement of the Hellenic Society of Medical Oncologists (HeSMO).Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
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
We reviewed seven reports of laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) alone for rectal cancer and 18 reports of laparoscopic surgery, including LAR. We examined the length of surgery, blood loss during surgery, conversion rate to open surgery, incidence of anastomotic leakage, morbidity, mortality, and local recurrence, and the 5-year overall survival rates. The values were as follows (range): length of surgery, 107-540 min vs 23-780 min; blood loss, 0-600 ml vs 0-1800 ml; conversion to open surgery, 0%-14.0% vs 1.0%-21.9%; anastomotic leakage, 0%-23.0% vs 3.0%-17.0%; morbidity, 6.1%-38.6% vs 5.8%-40.0%; mortality, 0%-2.0% vs 05-5.8%; and local recurrence, 1.4%-6.8% vs 0.95%-20.8%, respectively, in the LAR alone vs laparoscopic surgery groups. The 5-year overall survival rates of patients with stage I, II, III, and IV disease were 92%-98%, 79%-81%, 67%-89%, and 0%-15%, respectively, in the LAR alone group versus 85.4%-100%, 61.7%-94.4%, 53.7%-78%, and 0%-44.6%, respectively, in the laparoscopic surgery group. Thus, we demonstrated the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21969189What 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.