Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24267544›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2013

Laparoscopic vs. open approach for colorectal cancer: evolution over time of minimal invasive surgery.

Antonio Biondi, Giuseppe Grosso, Antonio Mistretta, Stefano Marventano, Chiara Toscano, Filippo Drago, Santi Gangi, Francesco Basile

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Accelerated enhancedBMJ open · 2017
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Antonio Biondi
Giuseppe Grosso
Antonio Mistretta
Stefano Marventano
Chiara Toscano
Filippo Drago
Santi Gangi
Francesco Basile
University of Catania · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

LaparoscopyColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsHumansLength of StayMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID24267544
PMCPMC3851244
OpenAlexW2163700118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.