ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2015
Therapeutic results of abdominoperineal resection in the prone jackknife position for T3-4 low rectal cancers.
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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Perioperative and oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resection in the prone position vs the classic lithotomy position: A systematic review with meta-analysis.Journal of surgical oncology · 2019Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the therapeutic results of abdominoperineal resections in the prone jackknife position for T3-4 low rectal cancers.
methodsFrom January 2002 to January 2011, 536 patients with T3-T4 low rectal cancer underwent abdominoperineal resection. Two hundred forty-three were treated in the Lloyd-Davies position and 293 in the prone jackknife position. Clinicopathological data and survival of the two groups were analyzed retrospectively.
resultsAbdominoperineal resections in the prone jackknife position group were associated with significantly less blood loss (124 ± 50.68 vs 210.67 ± 83.32 ml, P < 0.001) and shorter operation times (3.10 ± 1.08 vs 3.82 ± 1.43 h, p = 0.010) than those in Lloyd-Davies position group. The total local recurrence rate is 8.4 % (45/536). The local recurrence rate in the prone jackknife position group was significantly lower than in the Lloyd-Davies position group (5.5 vs 11.9 %, P < 0.001). By multivariate regression analysis, depth of tumor invasion (P = 0.032), CRM (P < 0.001), and position (P = 0.015) were found to be independent risk factors for local recurrence. Multivariate Cox regression survival analysis, lymph node metastasis, and CRM (P < 0.001) were proven to be the major independent prognostic factors for T3-T4 low rectal cancer patients.
conclusionsAbdominoperineal resection in the prone jackknife position for T3-T4 low rectal cancers is feasible and has a lower local recurrence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25367808What 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.