ArticleSurgery today2016
The feasibility of laparoscopic extended pelvic surgery for rectal cancer.
Article in Surgery today, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current surgical treatment strategies and ongoing issues for locally recurrent rectal cancer.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Efficacy of an additional flap operation in bladder-preserving surgery with radical prostatectomy and cystourethral anastomosis for rectal cancer involving the prostate.Surgery today · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe present study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic extended pelvic surgery for primary or recurrent rectal cancer.
methodsThe data on 77 patients, who underwent extended pelvic surgery between February 2008 and June 2014, were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided, based on their treatment history, into an open surgery (OS) group (n = 41) and a laparoscopic surgery (LS) group (n = 36).
resultsThe operative time in the LS group was significantly longer than that in the OS group (766 vs. 561 min; p < 0.001). In contrast, the LS group was associated with a significantly lower volume of intraoperative blood loss (195 vs. 923 ml; p < 0.001), fluid balance (5.38 vs. 8.23 ml/kg/h; p < 0.001) and rate of complications (40.0 vs. 68.3 %; p = 0.035), and a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay. The postoperative levels of colloid osmotic pressure and albumin were significantly higher in the LS group.
conclusionThe operative time of the LS group was longer than that of the OS group; however, the LS group experienced less blood loss and fewer complications. Moreover, LS was associated with a reduction in intraoperative infusions and a reduced fluid balance, which maintained homeostasis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26494005What 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.