ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2015
Laparoscopic versus open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: results from the national cancer data base.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Totally robotic low anterior resection versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018Guideline
- A multi-docking strategy for robotic LAR and deep pelvic surgery with the Hugo RAS system: experience from a tertiary referral center.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Similarities and differences between study designs in short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, case-matched, and cohort studies.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2021Review
- Evolution of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: update from the national cancer database.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- First Feasibility Study and Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic-Assisted Anterior Resection in Colorectal Cancer in Malaysia.Annals of coloproctology · 2020Article
- Laparoscopic and open surgery in rectal cancer patients in Germany: short and long-term results of a large 10-year population-based cohort.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Standardised approach to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective multi-centre analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2019Article
- Laparoscopic and open resection of rectal cancer-is age an effect modifier for short- and long-term survival?International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Article
- Review of Colorectal Studies Using the National Cancer Database.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2019Review
- Long-term oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic versus open rectal cancer resection: a high-quality population-based analysis in a Southern German district.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Article
- Transanal total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a case-matched study comparing TaTME versus standard laparoscopic TME.Cancer management and research · 2018Article
- Influence of multiple stapler firings used for rectal division on colorectal anastomotic leak rate.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Multicentre propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open surgery for T4 rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Factors Influencing Difficulty of Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Ultra-Low Rectal Cancer.Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques · 2017Article
- Characteristics of learning curve in minimally invasive ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in a single institution.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Article
- Results of Laparotomy and Laparoscopy for Perforated Colonic Diverticulitis.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile the use of laparoscopy has increased among patients undergoing colorectal surgery, there is ongoing debate regarding the oncologic equivalence of laparoscopy compared to open low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer.
methodsThe 2010-2011 NCDB was queried for patients undergoing LAR for rectal cancer. Subjects were grouped by laparoscopic (LLAR) versus open (OLAR) technique. Baseline characteristics were compared. Subjects were propensity matched, and outcomes were compared between groups.
resultsA total of 18,765 patients were identified (34.3% LLAR, 65.7% OLAR). After propensity matching, all baseline variables were highly similar except for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level. Complete resection was more common in patients undergoing LLAR (91.6 vs. 88.9%, p < 0.001), and statistically significant benefits were observed for gross, microscopic, and circumferential (>1 mm) margins (all p < 0.001). There was no difference in median number of lymph nodes obtained (15 vs. 15). Patients undergoing LLAR had shorter lengths of stay (5 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001) without a corresponding increase in 30-day readmission rates (6 vs. 7%, p = 0.02).
conclusionsLaparoscopic LAR appears to result in equivalent short-term oncologic outcomes compared to the traditional open approach as measured via surrogate endpoints in the NCDB. While these results support the increasing use of laparoscopy in rectal surgery, further data are necessary to assess long-term outcomes.
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.