Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26139507›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016

Short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision versus multi-incision laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer: a propensity-score-matched analysis of 214 cases.

Goutaro Katsuno, Masaki Fukunaga, Kunihiko Nagakari, Seichiro Yoshikawa, Daisuke Azuma, Shintaro Kohama

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Goutaro KatsunoDepartment of Surgery, Juntendo Urayasu Hospital, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Tomioka, Urayasu, 279-0021, Japan. gkatsuno4596@sd5.so-net.ne.jp.
Masaki FukunagaDepartment of Surgery, Juntendo Urayasu Hospital, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Tomioka, Urayasu, 279-0021, Japan.
Kunihiko NagakariDepartment of Surgery, Juntendo Urayasu Hospital, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Tomioka, Urayasu, 279-0021, Japan.
Seichiro YoshikawaDepartment of Surgery, Juntendo Urayasu Hospital, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Tomioka, Urayasu, 279-0021, Japan.
Daisuke AzumaDepartment of Surgery, Juntendo Urayasu Hospital, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Tomioka, Urayasu, 279-0021, Japan.
Shintaro KohamaDepartment of Surgery, Juntendo Urayasu Hospital, Juntendo University, 2-1-1 Tomioka, Urayasu, 279-0021, Japan.
Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to reveal the short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colorectal resection (SILC) compared with multi-incision laparoscopic colorectal resection (MILC) for colorectal cancer using propensity score matching analysis.

methodsThe study group included 235 patients who underwent SILC and 730 patients who underwent MILC for colorectal cancer between April 2009 and September 2014. The propensity score matching for age, gender, body mass index, tumor location (right-sided colon/sigmoid colon/upper rectum), lymph node dissection (D1/D2/D3), pathologic T (≤T3) stage and TNM (0-I/II/III) stage produced 107 matched pairs. The exclusion criteria for SILC were as follows: (1) tumors located at the transverse, descending colon or lower rectum, (2) stage IV tumors, synchronous or previous malignancies, (3) locally advanced tumors >T4, (4) acute obstructions or previous major abdominal surgery and (5) obese patients: BMI > 30.

resultsNo significant differences were observed in operating time, bleeding volumes, starting time of liquid diet and length of hospital stay between the SILC and MILC groups. However, the SILC group showed less analgesic requirements (1.1 vs. 1.9 times; p = 0.0006) and shorter length of incision (2.7 vs. 4.3 cm; p = 0.0000) compared to MILC group. The overall rate of postoperative complications was similar in both groups (2.8 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.70). The 5-year overall survival rate of SILC and MILC was 100 and 95% (p = 0.125) and 5-year disease-free survival rates in stages 0-III were 97 and 94% (p = 0.189), 100 and 92% in stage II and 90 and 85% in stage III, respectively.

conclusionsThis study suggests that SILC for colorectal cancer is a safe and feasible option with better cosmetic results and less pain in strictly selected patients. SILC can also produce good oncological results with similar postoperative outcomes to MILC.

Indexed as

AgedAnalgesicsCohort StudiesColorectal NeoplasmsDrug UtilizationFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMatched-Pair AnalysisPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesAnalgesicsColon cancerPropensity scoreRectal cancerSingle-incision laparoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID26139507
OpenAlexW1122848262

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.