ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2014
Single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer: state of art.
Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07237126 (Efficacy and Safety Assessment of Single-port Robotic Radical Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 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.
Efficacy and Safety Assessment of Single-port Robotic Radical Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: a Phase 2a Trial Based on the IDEAL Framework
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single incision laparoscopy versus conventional multiport laparoscopy for colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023Pooled it
- Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review of single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2018Pooled it
- Initial experience with the transanal approach for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in rectal cancer.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- Clinical application of two-port laparoscopic surgery in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Article
- Laparoscopic Radical Resection of Colorectal Cancer in the Treatment of Elderly Colorectal Cancer and Its Effect on Gastrointestinal Function.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Editorial: Laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Short-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center, Open-Label, Non-Inferiority, Randomized Clinical Trial.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Feasibility of Single-Incision Plus One Port Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2020Article
- Clinical and oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Single-incision laparoscopic ileocecal resection using an organ retractor.International journal of surgery case reports · 2017Article
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer.Visceral medicine · 2016Review
- Review of 500 single incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery cases - Lessons learned.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- Review of single incision laparoscopic surgery in colorectal surgery.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Review
- SILS v SILS+1: a Case-Matched Comparison for Colorectal Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2015Article
- Comparison of single incision and multi incision diagnostic laparoscopy on evaluation of diaphragmatic status after left thoracoabdominal penetrating stab wounds.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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of clinical trials have demonstrated that the laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer resection provides the same oncologic results as open surgery along with all clinical benefits of minimally invasive surgery. During the last years, a great effort has been made to research for minimizing parietal trauma, yet for cosmetic reasons and in order to further reduce surgery-related pain and morbidity. New techniques, such as natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and single-incision laparoscopy (SIL) have been developed in order to reach the goal of "scarless" surgery. Although NOTES may seem not fully suitable or safe for advanced procedures, such as colectomies, SIL is currently regarded as the next major advance in the progress of minimally invasive surgical approaches to colorectal disease that is more feasible in generalized use. The small incision through the umbilicus allows surgeons to use familiar standard laparoscopic instruments and thus, perform even complex procedures which require extraction of large surgical specimens or intestinal anastomosis. The cosmetic result from SIL is also better because the only incision is made through the umbilicus which can hide the wound effectively after operation. However, SIL raises a number of specific new challenges compared with the laparoscopic conventional approach. A reduced capacity for triangulation, the repeated conflicts between the shafts of the instruments and the difficulties to achieve a correct exposure of the operative field are the most claimed issues. The use therefore of this new approach for complex colorectal procedures might understandingly be viewed as difficult to implement, especially for oncologic cases.
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.