ArticleSurgery today2015
Feasibility and safety of laparoscopic surgery for metachronous colorectal cancer.
Article in Surgery today, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-term outcomes of open versus laparoscopic surgery in patients with metachronous colorectal cancer.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical features, surgical treatment strategy, and feasibility of minimally invasive surgery for synchronous and metachronous multiple colorectal cancers: A 14-year single-center experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Wound infection in colorectal cancer resections through a laparoscopic approach: a single-center prospective observational study of over 3000 cases.Discover oncology · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic radical resection of gastric cancer and metachronous colon cancer-a case report.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
- Colorectal surgery in patients with prior pancreaticoduodenectomy.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2019Article
- Metabolic Adaptation to Nutritional Stress in Human Colorectal Cancer.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Laparoscopic right colectomy in patients treated with previous gastrectomy.Surgery today · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study assessed the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic surgery for metachronous colorectal cancer in patients who had previously undergone surgery for primary colorectal cancer.
methodsOf the 52 patients who underwent curative resection for metachronous colorectal cancer from August 2004 to April 2013, 26 each underwent laparoscopic and open surgery. Their clinical characteristics and surgical and postoperative outcomes were compared.
resultsThe percentage of patients who underwent previous open surgery was significantly higher in the open group than in the laparoscopic group (92.3 vs. 65.4 %). The body mass index was higher in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (23.8 vs. 21.1 kg/m(2)), and the amount of blood loss was significantly smaller in the laparoscopic than in the open group (30 vs. 195 ml); however, the mean operative time did not differ significantly. The time to first flatus (1 vs. 3 days) and first stool (2 vs. 3.5 days), as well as the length of postoperative hospital stay (10 vs. 16 days), was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group than in the open group, although the rates of postoperative complications did not differ (15.4 vs. 23.1 %).
conclusionsLaparoscopic surgery for metachronous colorectal cancer shows short-term benefits compared with open surgery and should be considered as a treatment option in these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24840401What 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.