ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
A comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer: a propensity score analysis.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hand-assisted versus straight laparoscopy for colorectal surgery - a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Pooled it
- Long-term oncologic outcome and risk factors after conversion in laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Article
- Laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients: a comparison of laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic techniques.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare oncologic outcomes and perioperative variables following conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP) versus hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for rectal cancer.
methodsBetween January 2008 and December 2012, 2680 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for rectal cancer were analyzed. We used 1:1 propensity score matching to adjust for potential baseline confounders between groups including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor distance from the anal verge, clinical T and N categories, pathologic T and N categories, preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level, and the status of preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy. After matching, we analyzed 278 patients in each group (n = 556).
resultsThe median follow-up period was 36.2 and 37.4 months in the HALS group and the conventional LAP group, respectively. Postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.531). The 5-year overall survival rate was 88.8 % in the HALS group and 91.2 % in the conventional LAP group (P = 0.329). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 77.0 % in the HALS group and 79.7 % in the conventional LAP group (P = 0.591).
conclusionsHALS is considered a safe and feasible approach for rectal cancer treatment that enables the preservation of the advantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery.
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.