Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26811618›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2016

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Current status and implementation of the latest technological innovations.

Marta Pascual, Silvia Salvans, Miguel Pera

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Is postoperative ARDS different from medical ARDS?Critical care (London, England) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Nutritional intervention during a teleprehabilitation pilot study in high-risk patients with colorectal cancer: adherence, motivators, and barriers.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marta PascualMarta Pascual, Silvia Salvans, Miguel Pera, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Hospital del Mar, Medical Research Institute, 08003 Barcelona, Spain.
Silvia SalvansMarta Pascual, Silvia Salvans, Miguel Pera, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Hospital del Mar, Medical Research Institute, 08003 Barcelona, Spain.
Miguel PeraMarta Pascual, Silvia Salvans, Miguel Pera, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Hospital del Mar, Medical Research Institute, 08003 Barcelona, Spain.
Municipal Institute for Medical Research · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The introduction of laparoscopy is an example of surgical innovation with a rapid implementation in many areas of surgery. A large number of controlled studies and meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with the same benefits than other minimally invasive procedures, including lesser pain, earlier recovery of bowel transit and shorter hospital stay. On the other hand, despite initial concerns about oncological safety, well-designed prospective randomized multicentre trials have demonstrated that oncological outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery are similar. Although the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery has increased in recent years, the percentages of patients treated with surgery using minimally invasive techniques are still reduced and there are also substantial differences among centres. It has been argued that the limiting factor for the use of laparoscopic procedures is the number of surgeons with adequate skills to perform a laparoscopic colectomy rather than the tumour of patients' characteristics. In this regard, future efforts to increase the use of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery will necessarily require more efforts in teaching surgeons. We here present a review of recent controversies of the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery, such as in rectal cancer operations, the possibility of reproducing complete mesocolon excision, and the benefits of intra-corporeal anastomosis after right hemicolectomy. We also describe the results of latest innovations such as single incision laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for colon and rectal diseases.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyColectomyColonDiffusion of InnovationHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRectumTreatment OutcomeColorectal cancerInflammatory bowel diseaseLaparoscopyNatural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgeryRobotic surgerySingle incision laparoscopic surgerySurgical innovations

Identifiers

PMID26811618
PMCPMC4716070
OpenAlexW2417094944

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.