ArticleSurgery today2015
Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for primary tumor resection in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer with unresectable metastasis.
Article in Surgery today, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical safety and outcomes of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for palliative resection of primary tumors in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Pooled it
- The short-term outcomes of laparoscopic multivisceral resection for locally advanced colorectal cancer: our experience of 39 cases.Surgery today · 2017Article
- Differences in clinical features between laparoscopy and open resection for primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer.OncoTargets and therapy · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with those of open surgery in patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable metastasis.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent primary tumor resection of colorectal cancer with unresectable metastasis between January 2001 and December 2010.
resultsOf 280 patients, 61 underwent laparoscopic surgery and 219 underwent open surgery. Regarding the short-term outcomes, the amount of blood loss was lower in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.014), although the operation was longer in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.003). The times to flatus (P < 0.001), liquid food intake (P < 0.001), and the duration of hospital stay (P < 0.001) were shorter in the laparoscopic group. The complication rate was lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (P = 0.043). Although the overall survival was significantly better in the laparoscopic group in a univariate analysis, there was no significant difference in the overall survival between the two groups in a multivariate analysis (P = 0.482).
conclusionsLaparoscopic surgery seems to be a safe and feasible option, with short-term benefit for primary tumor resection in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer with unresectable metastasis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25387658What 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.