ReviewJournal of clinical medicine research2015
Laparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Resection Within Fast Track Programs: An Update Meta-Analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Enhanced recovery after surgery-Does the ERAS concept keep its promises].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Pooled it
- Application of enhanced recovery after gastric cancer surgery: An updated meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Pooled it
- Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programs Improve Patient Outcomes and Recovery: A Meta-analysis.World journal of surgery · 2017Pooled it
- Trial
- Implementation and Outcomes of a Perioperative Geriatrics Strategy, PRIME, for Older Adults Undergoing Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery program with robotic surgery in high-risk patients obtains optimal results after colorectal resections.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Observational
- Role for colorectal teams to support non-colorectal teams to improve clinical outcomes and adherence to ERAS guidelines for segmental colectomy: a cohort study.BMC surgery · 2021Article
- Postoperative Ileus and Postoperative Gastrointestinal Tract Dysfunction: Pathogenic Mechanisms and Novel Treatment Strategies Beyond Colorectal Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Review
- The impact of complications on a programme of enhanced recovery in colorectal surgery.BMC surgery · 2018Article
- Active and passive compliance in an enhanced recovery programme.International journal of colorectal disease · 2016Article
- Role of Epidural Analgesia within an ERAS Program after Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Studies.Surgery research and practice · 2016Review
- [Risk awareness and training for prevention of complications in minimally invasive surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2015Article
- Ongoing evolution of practice gaps in gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery: 2014 report from the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Continuing Education Committee.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Port site infection in laparoscopic surgery: A review of its management.World journal of clinical cases · 2015Review
- Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Is It Time to Change Our Strategy Regarding Laparoscopic Colectomy?In vivo (Athens, Greece)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic colorectal surgery by comparing open operation within fast track (FT) programs. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and Chinese Biological Medicine Database were searched to identify all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic with open colorectal resection within FT programs. A total of seven RCTs were finally included, enrolling 714 patients with colorectal cancer: 373 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery and FT programs (laparoscopic/FT group) and 341 patients received open operation and FT programs (open/FT group). Postoperative hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.66; 95% CI: 0.27 - 1.04; P < 0.05), total hospital stay (WMD: 1.46; 95% CI: 0.40 - 2.51; P < 0.05) and overall complications (RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.12 - 1.54; P < 0.05) were significantly lower in laparoscopic/FT group than in open/FT group. However, no statistically significant differences on mortality (risk ratio (RR): 2.26; 95% CI: 0.62 - 8.22; P = 0.21), overall surgical complications (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.94 - 1.51; P = 0.15) and readmission rates (RR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.79 - 2.22; P = 0.28) were found between both groups. The laparoscopic colorectal surgery combined with FT programs shows high-level evidence on shortening postoperative and total hospital stay, reducing overall complications without compromising patients' safety.
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.