Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22011939›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2012

A single surgeon's experience with 54 consecutive cases of multivisceral resection for locally advanced primary colorectal cancer: can the laparoscopic approach be performed safely?

Kwang Yeon Kim, Duk Won Hwang, Young Kwang Park, Ho Suk Lee

Abstract readEvaluation 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 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Perioperative and oncological outcomes following robotic en bloc multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Short- and long-term outcomes following laparoscopicWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors.

Kwang Yeon KimDepartment of Surgery, Seoul Veterans' Hospital, Dunchon 2-dong, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, South Korea.
Duk Won Hwang
Young Kwang Park
Ho Suk Lee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer has become popular. However, no previous studies have compared the laparoscopic and open approaches for colorectal cancer adherent to adjacent organs. This study analyzed the short- and long-term survival outcomes after laparoscopic multivisceral resection of the locally advanced primary colorectal cancer compared with open procedure in an effort to address appropriate patient selection.

methodsFrom a prospectively collected database, 54 patients with locally advanced primary colorectal cancer who had undergone multivisceral resection from March 2001 to September 2009 were identified. Laparoscopic and open surgeries were selectively performed for 38 and 16 patients, respectively.

resultsThe two groups had similar demographics, with no differences in age, sex, and comorbidity. However, five emergency or urgency operations were included in the open group. No differences existed between the two groups in terms of tumor node metastasis (TNM) staging, histologic tumor infiltration rates, or curative resection rates. Three patients (7.9%) in the laparoscopic group required conversion to open procedure. In the laparoscopic group, the operation time was longer (330 vs. 257 min; p = 0.018), the volume of blood loss was less (269 vs. 638 ml; p = 0.000), and the time until return of bowel movement was shorter (3.7 vs. 4.7 days; p = 0.029) than in the open group. The perioperative morbidity rates were similar in the two groups (21.1% vs. 43.7%; p = 0.107), and no perioperative mortality occurred in either group. The mean follow-up period after curative resection was 40 months in the laparoscopic group and 35 months in the open group. The two groups showed similar rates for local recurrence (7.7% vs. 27.3%; p = 0.144) and distant metastasis (15.4% vs. 45.5%; p = 0.091). The overall 5-year survival rate was 60.5% for the laparoscopic group and 47.7% for the open group (p = 0.044, log-rank test). In terms of TNM stages, the overall 5-year survival rate for pathologic stage 3 disease was 58.3% for the laparoscopic group and 25% for the open group (p = 0.022, log rank test), but no difference was noted for the stage 2 patients (p = 0.384).

conclusionsNo adverse long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic resection were observed in this study. Although inherent limitations exist in this nonrandomized study, laparoscopic multivisceral resection seems to be a feasible and effective treatment option for colorectal cancer for carefully selected patients. Patients with colon cancer should be much more carefully selected for laparoscopic multivisceral resection than patients with rectal cancer because anatomic uncertainty can make oncologic en bloc resection incomplete.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlood Loss, SurgicalBlood TransfusionColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, Local

Identifiers

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.