Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26401082›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2015

Laparoscopic vs open abdominoperineal resection in the multimodality management of low rectal cancers.

Yu-Wei Wang, Li-Yong Huang, Cheng-Li Song, Chang-Hua Zhuo, De-Bing Shi, Guo-Xiang Cai, Ye Xu, San-Jun Cai, Xin-Xiang Li

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Yu-Wei WangYu-Wei Wang, Li-Yong Huang, De-Bing Shi, Guo-Xiang Cai, Ye Xu, San-Jun Cai, Xin-Xiang Li, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Li-Yong HuangYu-Wei Wang, Li-Yong Huang, De-Bing Shi, Guo-Xiang Cai, Ye Xu, San-Jun Cai, Xin-Xiang Li, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Cheng-Li SongYu-Wei Wang, Li-Yong Huang, De-Bing Shi, Guo-Xiang Cai, Ye Xu, San-Jun Cai, Xin-Xiang Li, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Chang-Hua ZhuoYu-Wei Wang, Li-Yong Huang, De-Bing Shi, Guo-Xiang Cai, Ye Xu, San-Jun Cai, Xin-Xiang Li, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
De-Bing ShiYu-Wei Wang, Li-Yong Huang, De-Bing Shi, Guo-Xiang Cai, Ye Xu, San-Jun Cai, Xin-Xiang Li, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Guo-Xiang CaiYu-Wei Wang, Li-Yong Huang, De-Bing Shi, Guo-Xiang Cai, Ye Xu, San-Jun Cai, Xin-Xiang Li, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Ye XuYu-Wei Wang, Li-Yong Huang, De-Bing Shi, Guo-Xiang Cai, Ye Xu, San-Jun Cai, Xin-Xiang Li, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
San-Jun CaiYu-Wei Wang, Li-Yong Huang, De-Bing Shi, Guo-Xiang Cai, Ye Xu, San-Jun Cai, Xin-Xiang Li, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Xin-Xiang LiYu-Wei Wang, Li-Yong Huang, De-Bing Shi, Guo-Xiang Cai, Ye Xu, San-Jun Cai, Xin-Xiang Li, Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection compared with the open procedure in multimodality management of rectal cancer.

methodsA total of 106 rectal cancer patients who underwent open abdominoperineal resection (OAPR) were matched with 106 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) in a 1 to 1 fashion, between 2009 and 2013 at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. Propensity score matching was carried out based on age, gender, pathological staging of the disease and administration of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Data regarding preoperative staging, surgical technique, pathological results, postoperative recovery and complications were reviewed and compared between the LAPR and OAPR groups. Perineal closure around the stoma and pelvic floor reconstruction were performed only in OAPR, not in LAPR. Therefore, abdominoperineal resection procedure-specific surgical complications including parastomal hernia and perineal wound complications were compared between the open and laparoscopic procedure. Regular surveillance of the two cohorts was carried out to gather prognostic data. Disease-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimate and log-rank test. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with locally advanced disease treated with preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgical resection.

resultsNo significant difference was found between the LAPR group and the OAPR group in terms of clinicopathological features. The operation time (180.8 ± 47.8 min vs 172.1 ± 49.2 min, P = 0.190), operative blood loss (93.9 ± 60.0 mL vs 88.4 ± 55.2 mL, P = 0.494), total number of retrieved lymph nodes (12.9 ± 6.9 vs 12.9 ± 5.4, P = 0.974), surgical complications (12.3% vs 15.1%, P = 0.549) and pathological characteristics were comparable between the LAPR and OAPR group, respectively. Compared with OAPR patients, LAPR patients showed significantly shorter postoperative analgesia (2.4 ± 0.7 d vs 2.7 ± 0.6 d, P < 0.001), earlier first flatus (57.3 ± 7.9 h vs 63.5 ± 9.2 h, P < 0.001), shorter urinary drainage time (6.5 ± 3.4 d vs 7.8 ± 1.3 d, P < 0.001), and shorter postoperative admission (11.2 ± 4.7 d vs 12.6 ± 4.0 d, P = 0.014). With regard to APR-specific complications (perineal wound complications and parastomal hernia), there were no significant differences between the two groups. Similar results were found in the 26 pairs of patients administered neoadjuvant chemoradiation in subgroup analysis. During the follow-up period, no port site recurrences were observed.

conclusionLaparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer is safe, and is associated with earlier recovery and shorter admission time in combination with neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyAdultAgedBlood Loss, SurgicalCarcinoma, Signet Ring CellChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantChinaDigestive System Surgical ProceduresDisease-Free SurvivalFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyAbdominoperineal resectionLaparoscopyNeoadjuvant chemoradiationRectal cancerTotal mesorectal excision

Identifiers

PMID26401082
PMCPMC4572798

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.