Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25503803›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2015

Comparison of minimally invasive and open colorectal resections for patients undergoing simultaneous R0 resection for liver metastases: a propensity score analysis.

Qi Lin, Qinghai Ye, Dexiang Zhu, Ye Wei, Li Ren, Peng Zheng, Pingping Xu, Lechi Ye, Minzhi Lv, Jia Fan and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 27 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Mini-invasiveWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2019
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Qi LinDepartment of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Qinghai Ye
Dexiang Zhu
Ye Wei
Li Ren
Peng Zheng
Pingping Xu
Lechi Ye
Minzhi Lv
Jia Fan
Jianmin Xu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe role of minimally invasive colorectal resection for patients undergoing a simultaneous resection for synchronous liver metastases had not been established. This study compared the short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open colorectal resection for patients undergoing simultaneous resection for liver metastases.

methodsThis study reviewed 101 consecutive patients undergoing simultaneous colorectal resection and R0 resection of synchronous liver metastases between January 2008 and December 2012. In the study, 36 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive colorectal resection were matched with 36 patients who had an open approach by propensity scoring. The analyzed variables included patient and tumor characteristics and short-term and long-term outcomes.

resultsAfter propensity score matching, the two groups had similar clinicopathologic variables. No patient undergoing the minimally invasive procedure experienced conversion to the open technique. No postoperative mortality occurred in either group. In the minimally invasive group, the estimated blood loss (P < 0.007), bowel function return time (P < 0.016), and postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.011) were significantly lower than those in the open group, although the operating time was significantly longer (P < 0.001). No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the groups. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of the 5-year overall survival rate (51 vs. 55 %; P = 0.794) and disease-free survival rate (38 vs. 27 %; P = 0.860).

conclusionMinimally invasive colorectal resection with simultaneous resection of liver metastases has an outcome similar to open approach but some short-term advantages.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyLaparotomyAgedBlood Loss, SurgicalColorectal NeoplasmsDefecationFemaleHumansLength of StayLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePropensity ScoreRecovery of FunctionRobotics

Identifiers

PMID25503803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.