ArticleChinese medical journal2015
Application of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision in locally advanced low rectal cancer.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extralevator abdominoperineal excision versus abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.Chinese medical journal · 2019Pooled it
- Standard versus extralevator abdominoperineal excision and oncologic outcomes for patients with distal rectal cancer: A meta-analysis.Medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Application of modified extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer resection.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for advanced low rectal cancer: Where to go.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Application of modified primary closure of the pelvic floor in laparoscopic extralevator abdominal perineal excision for low rectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Preliminary Outcome of Individualized Abdominoperineal Excision for Locally Advanced Low Rectal Cancer.Chinese medical journal · 2018Article
- Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer with biological mesh for pelvic floor reconstruction.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: The myth of reinventing the wheel.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen compared with conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR), extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of local recurrence for the treatment of locally advanced low rectal cancer. Combined with the laparoscopic technique, laparoscopic ELAPE (LELAPE) has the potential to reduce invasion and hasten postoperative recovery. In this study, we aim to investigate the advantages of LELAPE in comparison with conventional APR.
methodsFrom October 2010 to February 2013, 23 patients with low rectal cancer (T 3-4 N 0-2 M 0 ) underwent LELAPE; while during the same period, 25 patients were treated with conventional APR. The patient characteristics, intraoperative data, postoperative complications, and follow-up results were retrospectively compared and analyzed.
resultsThe basic patient characteristics were similar; but the total operative time for the LELAPE was longer than that of the conventional APR group (P = 0.014). However, the operative time for the perineal portion was comparable between the two groups (P = 0.328). The LELAPE group had less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.022), a lower bowel perforation rate (P = 0.023), and a positive circumferential margin (P = 0.028). Moreover, the patients, who received the LELAPE, had a lower postoperative Visual Analog Scale, quicker recovery of bowel function (P = 0.001), and a shorter hospital stay (P = 0.047). However, patients in the LELAPE group suffered more chronic perineal pain (P = 0.002), which may be related to the coccygectomy (P = 0.033). Although the metastasis rate and mortality rate were similar between the two groups, the local recurrence rate of the LELAPE group was statistically improved (P = 0.047).
conclusionsWhen compared with conventional APR, LELAPE has the potential to reduce the risk of local recurrence, and decreases operative invasion for the treatment of locally advanced low rectal cancer.
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.