Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25006515›Full record

ArticleISRN surgery2014

Three ports laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer: a step on refining of reduced port surgery.

Anwar Tawfik Amin, Tarek M Elsaba, Gamal Amira

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ISRN surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03426514 (Single-center Prospective Randomized Controlled Study of the Three-port Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03426514 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Single-center Prospective Randomized Controlled Study of the Three-port Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorRuijin HospitalRan2018 to 2025Enrolled282ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsThree-port Laparoscopic Surgery, Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

3 authors.

Anwar Tawfik AminDepartment of Surgical Oncology, South Egypt Cancer Institute, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt.
Tarek M ElsabaDepartment of Pathology, South Egypt Cancer Institute, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt.
Gamal AmiraDepartment of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. Reduced port surgery (RPS) is becoming increasingly popular for some surgeries. However, the application of RPS to the field of colectomy is still underdeveloped. Patients and Methods. In this series, we evaluated the outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection using 3 ports technique (10 mm umbilical port plus another two ports of either 5 or 10 mm) for twenty-four cases of colorectal cancer as a step for refining of RPS. Results. The mean estimated blood loss was 70 mL (40-90 mL). No major intraoperative complications have been encountered. The mean time for passing flatus after surgery was 36 hours (12-48 hrs). The mean time for oral fluid intake was 36 hours and for semisolid food was 48 hours. The mean hospital stay was 5 days (4-7 days). The perioperative period passed without events. All cases had free surgical margins. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 14 lymph nodes (5-23). Conclusion. Three ports laparoscopy assisted colorectal surgeries looks to be safe, effective and has cosmetic advantages. The procedure could maintain the oncologic principles of cancer surgery. It's a step on the way of refining of reduced port surgery.

Identifiers

PMID25006515
PMCPMC3972942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.