ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2014
Evolution and future of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal Trends in Clinical Evidence of 5-Year Survival Within Electronic Health Records Among Patients With Early-Stage Colon Cancer Managed With Laparoscopy-Assisted Colectomy vs Open Colectomy.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Perspective on the current state of hyperspectral/multispectral imaging for minimally invasive surgery.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Review
- The patient journey and guideline-concordant care in colorectal cancer-is current practice enough?Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Cross-specialty impact in the adoption of minimally invasive surgery in abdominal surgical oncology at the hospital level.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Innovation in gastrointestinal surgery: the evolution of minimally invasive surgery-a narrative review.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resections for rectal and rectosigmoid cancer: an institutional experience.Irish journal of medical science · 2022Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Review
- Evolution and advances in laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The advances of laparoscopic surgery since the early 1990s have caused one of the largest technical revolutions in medicine since the detection of antibiotics (1922, Flemming), the discovery of DNA structure (1953, Watson and Crick), and solid organ transplantation (1954, Murray). Perseverance through a rocky start and increased familiarity with the chop-stick surgery in conjunction with technical refinements has resulted in a rapid expansion of the indications for minimally invasive surgery. Procedure-related factors initially contributed to this success and included the improved postoperative recovery and cosmesis, fewer wound complications, lower risk for incisional hernias and for subsequent adhesion-related small bowel obstructions; the major breakthrough however came with favorable long-term outcomes data on oncological parameters. The future will have to determine the specific role of various technical approaches, define prognostic factors of success and true progress, and consider directing further innovation while potentially limiting approaches that do not add to patient 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.