ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2016
Ten-year outcomes following laparoscopic colorectal resection: results of a randomized controlled trial.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing access routes and anastomotic techniques for right-sided colonic resections: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Updated guideline for closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies.The British journal of surgery · 2022Pooled it
- An evidence map and synthesis review with meta-analysis on the risk of incisional hernia in colorectal surgery with standard closure.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Barbed Sutures Are Associated With a Lower Incidence of Incisional Hernia Compared With Continuous Non-Barbed Monofilament Sutures After Minimally Invasive Gastroenterological Surgery.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- Colorectal and emergency surgical patients in the literature supporting EHS and AHS guidelines on abdominal wound closure: a granular analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of chyle leakage between laparoscopic and open colectomy in patients with colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of coloproctology · 2025Review
- Review
- Clinicopathologic parameters associated with postoperative complications and risk factors for tumor recurrence and mortality after tumor resection of patients with colorectal cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2018Article
- Can laparoscopic surgery prevent incisional hernia in patients with Crohn's disease: a comparison study of 750 patients undergoing open and laparoscopic bowel resection.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Laparoscopy may decrease morbidity and length of stay after elective colon cancer resection, especially in frail patients: results from an observational real-life study.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Observational
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the impact of laparoscopy compared to open surgery on long-term outcomes in a large series of patients who participated in a randomized controlled trial comparing short-term results of laparoscopic (LPS) versus open colorectal resection.
methodsThis is a retrospective review of a prospective database including 662 patients with colorectal disease (526, 79 % cancer patients) who were randomly assigned to LPS or open colorectal resection and followed every 6 months by office visits. The primary endpoint of the study was long-term morbidity. Secondary outcomes included 10-year overall, cancer-specific, and disease-free survivals. All patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.
resultsFifty-eight (8.8 %) patients were lost to follow-up. Median follow-up was 131 (IQR 78-153) months in the LPS group and 126 (IQR 52-152) months in the open group (p = 0.121). Overall, long-term morbidity rate was 11.8 % (36/309) in the LPS versus 12.6 % (37/295) in the open group (p = 0.770). Incisional hernia rate was 5.8 % (18/309) in the LPS group versus 8.1 % (24/295) in the open group (p = 0.264). Adhesion-related small-bowel obstruction occurred in five (1.6 %) patients in the LPS versus four (1.4 %) patients in the open group (p = 1.000). In 497 cancer patients, 10-year overall survival was 45.3 % in the LPS group and 40.9 % in the open group (p = 0.160). No difference was found in cancer-specific and disease-free survivals, also when patients were stratified according to cancer stage.
conclusionIn this series, LPS colorectal resection was not associated with a lower long-term morbidity rate when compared to open surgery. Overall, cancer-specific and disease-free survivals were similar in cancer patients who were treated with LPS and open surgeries.
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.