ArticleSurgery today2014
Case-matched comparison of the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.
Article in Surgery today, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Early Complication Differences Between Laparoscopic and Open Abdominoperineal Resection.Cureus · 2025Article
- Chylous ascites in colorectal surgery: A systematic review.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Article
- The impact of laparoscopic technique on the rate of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection of the rectum.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: Economic and clinical outcomes in the Brazilian healthcare.Medicine · 2020Article
- The adipofasciocutaneous gluteal fold perforator flap a versatile alternative choice for covering perineal defects.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Article
- Propensity score matching comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer in a middle-income country: short-term outcomes and cost analysis.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2018Article
- Laparoscopic lymphadenectomy around the left renal vein (16a2lat) by tunneling under the pancreas for advanced Siewert type II adenocarcinoma.Surgery today · 2016Article
- The feasibility of laparoscopic extended pelvic surgery for rectal cancer.Surgery today · 2016Article
- Article
- Dual-port laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection using the intended stoma site as the multichannel port.Surgery today · 2015Article
- Laparoscopic vs open abdominoperineal resection in the multimodality management of low rectal cancers.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Article
- Use of a multi-instrument access device in abdominoperineal resections.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer, by comparing it with a case-control series of open APR.
methodsFourteen patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic APR between August 2004 and November 2011 were compared with the open APR group of 14 patients matched for age, gender, and surgical procedure.
resultsThere were no cases of conversion to laparotomy in the laparoscopic APR group and no mortality in either of the groups. The median operation was longer (P = 0.002), but the median amount of blood loss was smaller (P = 0.019), in the laparoscopic APR group. The median length of hospital stay of the laparoscopic APR group was 8 days, shorter than that of the open APR group (16 days, P < 0.001). The changes of the WBC count and serum CRP level after operations were significantly smaller in the laparoscopic APR group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the perioperative morbidity and readmission rates within 30 days.
conclusionPatients undergoing laparoscopic APR had superior perioperative outcomes to those undergoing open APR, except for the longer operation.
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.