ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2014
[Treatment reality with respect to laparoscopic surgery of colonic cancer in Germany].
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.
- Comparative Effectiveness of Laparoscopic versus Open Colectomy on 5-Year Overall Survival in Non-Metastatic Colon Cancer: A Target Trial Emulation Study Using Retrospective Cohort Data from a Cancer Registry.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open colectomy in colon cancer patients: a study protocol for emulating a target trial using cancer registry data.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProspective randomized studies and meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic resection for colonic cancer is equivalent to open resection with respect to the oncological results and has short-term advantages in the early postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate whether laparoscopic colonic resection has become established as the standard in routine treatment.
methodsData from the multicenter observational study "Quality assurance colonic cancer (primary tumor)" from the time period from 1 January 2009 to 21 December 2011 were evaluated with respect to the total proportion of laparoscopic colonic cancer resections and tumor localization and specifically for laparoscopic sigmoid colon cancer resections. A comparison between low and high volume clinics (< 30 versus ≥ 30 colonic cancer resections/year) was carried out.
resultsLaparoscopic colonic cancer resections were carried out in 12 % versus 21.4 % of low and high volume clinics, respectively (p < 0.001) with a significant increase for low volume clinics (from 8.0 % to 15.6 %, p < 0.001) and a constant proportion in high volume clinics (from 21.7 % to 21.1 %, p = 0.905). For sigmoid colon cancer laparoscopic resection was carried out in 49.7 % versus 47.6 % (p = 0.584). Differences were found between low volume and high volume clinics in the conversion rates (17.3 % versus 6.6 %, p < 0.001), the length of the resected portion (Ø 23.6 cm versus 36.0 cm, p < 0.001) and the lymph node yield (Ø n = 15.7 versus 18.2, p = 0.008). There were no differences between the two groups of clinics regarding postoperative morbidity and mortality. The postoperative morbidity and length of stay were significantly lower for laparoscopic sigmoid resection than for conventional sigmoid resection.
conclusionThe laparoscopic access route for colonic cancer resection is not the standard approach in the participating clinics. The laparoscopic access route has the highest proportion for sigmoid colon resection. The differences in the conversion rates, length of the resected portion and the number of lymph nodes investigated between the low volume and high volume clinics must be viewed critically and must be interpreted in connection with the long-term oncological results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24924639What 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.