Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26895891›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016

Is laparoscopic surgery really effective for the treatment of colon and rectal cancer in very elderly over 80 years old? A prospective multicentric case-control assessment.

Francesco Roscio, Luigi Boni, Federico Clerici, Paolo Frattini, Elisa Cassinotti, Ildo Scandroglio

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
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 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic bariatric surgery in patients of 70 years and older: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Recent updates in the surgical treatment of colorectal cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2018
    Review
  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.

Francesco RoscioDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Galmarini Hospital, Piazzale A. Zanaboni, 1, 21049, Tradate, Italy. francesco_roscio@yahoo.it.
Luigi BoniPhD Program in Surgery and Surgical Biotechnologies, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Federico ClericiDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Galmarini Hospital, Piazzale A. Zanaboni, 1, 21049, Tradate, Italy.
Paolo FrattiniDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Galmarini Hospital, Piazzale A. Zanaboni, 1, 21049, Tradate, Italy.
Elisa CassinottiMinimally Invasive Surgery Research Center, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Ildo ScandroglioDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Galmarini Hospital, Piazzale A. Zanaboni, 1, 21049, Tradate, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery (LCS) for colon and rectal cancer in the very elderly over 80 years old.

methodsWe performed a prospective multicentric analysis comparing patients over 80 years (Group A) and patients between 60 and 69 years (Group B) undergoing LCS for cancer from January 2008 to December 2013. Colon and rectal cancers were analyzed separately. Comorbidity and complications were classified using the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and the Clavien-Dindo system, respectively. Oncological parameters included tumor-free margins, number of lymph nodes harvested and circumferential resection margin.

resultsGroup A included 96 and 33 patients, and Group B 220 and 82 for colon and rectal cancers, respectively. Groups were similar except for ASA score and CCI, as expected. There was no significant difference in operative time [colon; rectum] (180[IQR 150-200] vs 180[150-210] min; NS-180[160-210] vs 180[165-240] min; NS), estimated blood loss (50[25-75] vs 50[25-120] mL; NS-50[0-150] vs 50[25-108.7] mL; NS) and conversion rate (2.1 vs 2.7 %; NS-3.0 vs 2.4 %; NS). Timing of first stool (3[2-3.25] vs 3[2-5] dd; NS-3[2-4] vs 3[2-5] dd; NS), length of stay (7[6-8] vs 7[6-8] dd; NS-8[8-9] vs 8[7-9] dd; NS) and readmission rate (1.0 vs 0.45 %; NS-6.1 vs 1.2 %; NS) were similar. Tumor-free margins were appropriate, and positivity of CRM is poor (6.1 vs 4.9; NS). We did not record significant differences in complications rate (47.9 vs 43.6 %; NS-63.6 vs 52.4 %; NS).

conclusionsLaparoscopic surgery is effective for the treatment of colorectal cancer even in the very elderly. Age is not a risk factor or a limitation for LCS.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBlood Loss, SurgicalCase-Control StudiesColonic NeoplasmsComorbidityConversion to Open SurgeryDigestive System Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMaleColon cancerLaparoscopic surgeryRectal cancerVery elderly

Identifiers

PMID26895891

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.