Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22580882›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2012

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection from a phase II trial to evaluate laparoscopic surgery for stage 0/I rectal cancer: Japan Society of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Lap RC.

Shoichi Fujii, Seiichiro Yamamoto, Masaaki Ito, Shigeki Yamaguchi, Kazuhiro Sakamoto, Yusuke Kinugasa, Yukihito Kokuba, Junji Okuda, Kenichi Yoshimura, Masahiko Watanabe

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A multicentre prospective study of anal function after laparoscopic ultra-low rectal cancer surgery using a mixed-effects model.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Transanal TME: new standard or fad?Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2019
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

10 authors.

Shoichi FujiiDepartment of Surgery, Gastroenterological Centre, Yokohama City University, 4-57 Urafunecho, Minami-ku, Yokohama, 232-0024, Japan. u0970047@urahp.yokohama-cu.ac.jp
Seiichiro Yamamoto
Masaaki Ito
Shigeki Yamaguchi
Kazuhiro Sakamoto
Yusuke Kinugasa
Yukihito Kokuba
Junji Okuda
Kenichi Yoshimura
Masahiko Watanabe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic intersphincteric resection (Lap ISR) is not yet an established technique and its safety and feasibility are unclear. Our aim was to clarify the safety and feasibility of Lap ISR for clinical stage 0/I rectal cancer (Lap RC) in a prospective multicenter study of laparoscopic surgery in Japan.

methodsTo examine the technical and oncological feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, we conducted a confirmatory phase II trial to evaluate laparoscopic surgery for preoperative clinical stage 0/I rectal cancer. Eligibility criteria included histologically proven carcinoma, size ≤ 8 cm, age 20-75 years, no bowel obstruction, and no prior chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Between February 2008 and September 2010, 495 patients with rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic surgery at 43 institutions. Patients' background characteristics and operative and postoperative outcomes were recorded prospectively.

resultsSeventy-seven patients (15.6 %) underwent Lap ISR. A diverting stoma was created in 69 patients (89.6 %). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 4 patients (5.2 %): 2 patients were converted because of uncontrollable bleeding, and the other 2 patients because of the need for pelvic side wall lymphadenectomy. There was no mortality. Median operative time was 345 min (range = 198-565), median amount of blood loss was 100 ml (range = 0-1760), and three patients (3.9 %) were transfused intraoperatively. The median number of dissected lymph nodes was 14 (range = 3-33), and all (proximal, distal, and vertical) pathological cut margins were negative. Postoperative complications of grade 2 or more were detected in 17 patients (22.1 %), including anastomotic leakage in 5 (6.4 %), bowel obstruction in 5 (6.5 %), and surgical site infection in 2 (2.6 %). Abdominal drainage and diverting stoma were necessary in two patients (2.6 %) due to anastomotic leakage. Median length of postoperative hospital stay was 13 days (range = 7-167).

conclusionLap ISR was feasible and safe for clinical stage 0/I rectal cancer with favorable short-term outcome.

Indexed as

Anal CanalFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingProspective StudiesRectal NeoplasmsTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

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.