ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2015
Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for colorectal malignancy--results of a matched-pair comparison to conventional surgery.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Da Vinci single-port robotic system current application and future perspective in general surgery: A scoping review.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Long-term oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Oncologic long-term outcome of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Article
- Postoperative analgesia using fentanyl plus celecoxib versus epidural anesthesia after laparoscopic colon resection.Surgery today · 2017Article
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
backgroundSingle-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a new minimally invasive technique which has frequently been applied for treatment of benign colorectal diseases. However, there is still little experience with this technique for the treatment of colorectal cancer.
methodsSixty-eight patients with SILS resections for colon (n = 25) or rectal cancer (n = 43) were compared to a group of conventionally operated patients who were matched for surgical procedure, tumor stage and tumor location, and the use of preoperative radiochemotherapy.
resultsBoth groups were comparable for lymph node harvest, specimen length, and the duration of surgery. No significant differences were observed for the number of positive circumferential resection margins, or the distance of the tumor to both the aboral or lateral resection margin, but two positive resection margins were only present after SILS and not after conventional surgery. Hospitalization tended to be shorter after SILS (p = 0.097). Overall, morbidity was equivalent between the two groups, with a difference for colon cancer where it was significantly lower after SILS as compared to open surgery (p = 0.025) mainly due to a lower rate of wound complications.
conclusionSILS might be an acceptable alternative to open surgery for the treatment of colon cancer. For rectal cancer, no apparent benefit could be documented. As no sufficient data on the oncologic quality are available, single-incision laparoscopic surgery can yet not be recommended for the treatment of rectal cancer out of clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25354966What 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.