ArticleBMC surgery2013
Laparoscopic vs. open approach for colorectal cancer: evolution over time of minimal invasive surgery.
Article in BMC surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 5 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Mid- and low-rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs open treatment-short- and long-term results. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Pooled it
- Short- and Long-Term Oncological Outcome After Rectal Cancer Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Open Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2018Pooled it
- What to consider when designing a laparoscopic colorectal training curriculum: a review of the literature.Techniques in coloproctology · 2018Pooled it
- Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2017Pooled it
- Trial
- Accelerated enhancedBMJ open · 2017Trial
- Small Bowel Cancer: Implications of Preoperative Work-Up on Surgical Strategy.World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Development of a master-slave isomorphic modular handheld electric robotic prototype for laparoscopic surgery.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Application of double purse-string anastomosis in optimizing laparoscopic NOSES surgery for rectal cancer under the payment system of DRGs.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Preoperative factors influence technique selection in surgical management of small bowel obstruction: findings from the SnapSBO multinational prospective observational study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Observational
- Integration of robotics as standard surgical procedure during residency training for visceral surgery using a balanced scorecard (BSC).Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Ursolic Acid Suppresses Colorectal Cancer Through Autophagy-Lysosomal Degradation of β-Catenin.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Economic Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis Therapeutic Interventions: A Systematic Review.Health science reports · 2025Review
- The Determinants of Long-Term Outcomes After Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Literature Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis for cecal cancer.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Article
- Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Procedures in Specific General Surgical Interventions.Cureus · 2024Review
- Neo-Antigen-Reactive T Cells Immunotherapy for Colorectal Cancer: A More Personalized Cancer Therapy Approach.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the late '80s the successes of the laparoscopic surgery for gallbladder disease laid the foundations on the modern use of this surgical technique in a variety of diseases. In the last 20 years, laparoscopic colorectal surgery had become a popular treatment option for colorectal cancer patients. DISCUSSION: Many studies emphasized on the benefits stating the significant advantages of the laparoscopic approach compared with the open surgery of reduced blood loss, early return of intestinal motility, lower overall morbidity, and shorter duration of hospital stay, leading to a general agreement on laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to conventional open surgery for colon cancer. The reduced hospital stay may also decrease the cost of the laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer, despite th higher operative spending compared with open surgery. The average reduction in total direct costs is difficult to define due to the increasing cost over time, making challenging the comparisons between studies conducted during a time range of more than 10 years. However, despite the theoretical advantages of laparoscopic surgery, it is still not considered the standard treatment for colorectal cancer patients due to technical limitations or the characteristics of the patients that may affect short and long term outcomes.
conclusionsThe laparoscopic approach to colectomy is slowly gaining acceptance for the management of colorectal pathology. Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer demonstrates better short-term outcome, oncologic safety, and equivalent long-term outcome of open surgery. For rectal cancer, laparoscopic technique can be more complex depending on the tumor location. The advantages of minimally invasive surgery may translate better care quality for oncological patients and lead to increased cost saving through the introduction of active enhanced recovery programs which are likely cost-effective from the perspective of the hospital health-care providers.
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.