ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2014
[Scientific evidence for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimized perioperative management (fast-track, ERAS) to enhance postoperative recovery in elective colorectal surgery.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2022Review
- Oncologic long-term outcome of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInnovative surgical techniques in colorectal surgery aim to provide diminished surgical injury and at least equivalent or even improved quality of treatment and oncological results. High level clinical studies are mandatory to examine the feasibility and advantages (or disadvantages) of new operative techniques.
objectivesLaparoscopic colonic resection for cancer has been investigated with respect to safety and oncological quality in various prospective randomized studies (COST study, COLOR-I and CLASICC). The minimally invasive procedure is feasible and safe which was demonstrated in many studies but can these results be extrapolated to laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery?
resultsThe short term outcomes of the COLOR-II trial were published recently and laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer was not found to be inferior compared to open resection. Recovery after laparoscopic surgery was better than after open surgery. Laparoscopic surgery was found to have significant advantages with respect to blood loss, operating time, use of pain medication, early restoration of bowel function and reduction of hospital stay as well as the lateral safety margins in the distal third of the rectum. The long-term results focussing on local recurrence showed a positive trend in favor of laparoscopic rectal surgery and will be published shortly.
conclusionLaparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) appears to have clinically measurable short-term advantages in patients with primary rectal cancer based on the evidence of randomized studies. Laparoscopic rectal cancer resection may become the gold standard in the future.
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.