Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22101420›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2012

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery using colon-lifting technique for colorectal cancer: a matched case-control comparison with standard multiport laparoscopic surgery in terms of short-term results and access instrument cost.

Shoichi Fujii, Kazuteru Watanabe, Mitsuyoshi Ota, Jun Watanabe, Yasushi Ichikawa, Shigeru Yamagishi, Kenji Tatsumi, Hirokazu Suwa, Chikara Kunisaki, Masataka Taguri and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative 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. It is linked to trial NCT01567098 (Single Incision Versus Conventional 3-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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.

NCT01567098 naunknown statusnot on this map

Single Incision Versus Conventional 3-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Single Center Prospective Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Authority, Hong KongRan2012 to 2014Enrolled120ConditionsAppendicitisArmssingle incision laparoscopic appendectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colorectal surgery-systematic review and pooled analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2014
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Single-incision laparoscopic ileocecal resection using an organ retractor.International journal of surgery case reports · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2016
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

12 authors.

Shoichi FujiiDepartment of Surgery, Gastroenterological Center, Yokohama City University, 4-57 Urafunecho, Minami-ku, Yokohama, 232-0024, Japan. u0970047@urahp.yokohama-cu.ac.jp
Kazuteru Watanabe
Mitsuyoshi Ota
Jun Watanabe
Yasushi Ichikawa
Shigeru Yamagishi
Kenji Tatsumi
Hirokazu Suwa
Chikara Kunisaki
Masataka Taguri
Satoshi Morita
Itaru Endo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSingle-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been used for colorectal cancer as a minimally invasive procedure. However, there are still difficulties concerning effective triangulation and countertraction. The study's purpose was to clarify the usefulness of the colon-lifting technique (CLT) in SILS for colorectal cancer.

methodsSILS was performed for cancer (cT2N0 or less) of the right-sided colon (near the ileocecum), sigmoid, or rectosigmoid. The SILS™ Port was used for transumbilical access. A suture string was inserted through the abdominal wall and passed through the mesocolon. The colon was retracted anteriorly and fixed to the abdominal wall. The main mesenteric vessels were placed under tension. Lymph node dissection was performed by medial approach. Short-term surgical outcomes and access port costs were compared between SILS (using CLT) and the standard multiport technique (MPT). The two groups were case-matched by propensity scoring. Analyzed variables included preoperative Dukes stage and tumor location.

resultsFrom June 2009 to April 2011, 27 patients underwent SILS, and from April 2005 to April 2011, 85 patients underwent MPT. Propensity scoring generated 23 matched patients per group for SILS versus MPT comparisons. There were no significant differences in operating time, blood loss, early complications, postoperative analgesic frequency, or length of hospital stay. One MPT patient was converted to open surgery (4.5%); no SILS patients were converted. There were no significant differences in the length of distal cut margin and the number of harvested lymph nodes, except incision length (SILS vs. MPT: 33 vs. 55 mm, P < 0.001). Significant differences favored SILS in access instrument cost (SILS vs. MPT: 62,761 vs. 77,130 Japanese yen, P < 0.001).

conclusionsSILS performed using CLT was safe and effective in providing radical treatment of cT2N0 cancer in the right-sided colon, sigmoid, or rectosigmoid. SILS was advantageous with respect to cosmesis and lower cost of access instruments.

Indexed as

AgedBlood Loss, SurgicalCase-Control StudiesColorectal NeoplasmsCosts and Cost AnalysisFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPropensity ScoreTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.