ReviewUpdates in surgery2016
Minimally invasive approach to colorectal cancer: an evidence-based analysis.
Review in Updates in surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomy: insights from a single centre.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
- Short-term efficacy of laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer and risk of unplanned reoperation after surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic Radical Resection versus Routine Surgery for Colorectal Cancer.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic approach to colonic obstruction for colon cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Predictive factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Gynecologists May Underestimate the Amount of Blood Loss during Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2018Article
- Impact of radiofrequency energy on intraoperative outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy for cancer in obese patients.Updates in surgery · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was initially used for the treatment of colorectal benign disease. However, the indications for MIS techniques have progressively been expanded to include cancers. Nowadays, the indications for MIS are almost the same as those for open surgery. The scientific validation of MIS for colorectal cancer has favorably evolved. The advantages awaited for the short-term outcome were confirmed, although at the cost of longer operating time and higher costs. In parallel, tangible evidence of oncologic safety was demonstrated, and long-term results of MIS have been found comparable to those of open surgery. In the current state of MIS short-term superiority and log-term equality, less surgical injury, lower immune function depression and better postoperative outcome make MIS particularly suitable for delicate and difficult patients, such as elderly or obese; on the contrary, the lower costs have led to still consider open surgery as a valid alternative for low-impact resections (such as right colectomy). The continuous development in the field of MIS has recently led to the introduction of the single-port (SILS) and natural-orifice (NOTES) techniques, which allow better esthetic results, even if the their validation has not yet reached scientific evidence.
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.