ArticleWorld journal of surgery2016
10-Year Oncologic Outcomes After Laparoscopic or Open Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- The comprehensive therapeutic effects of rectal surgery are better in laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Oncotarget · 2017Pooled it
- Risk factors affecting oncological outcomes of surgical resections for middle and lower rectal cancer.Turkish journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Applying interpretable machine learning algorithms to predict risk factors for permanent stoma in patients after TME.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- The Multidisciplinary Approach of Rectal Cancer: The Experience of "COMRE Group" Model.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Similarities and differences between study designs in short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, case-matched, and cohort studies.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2021Review
- Use of a simplified consent form to facilitate patient understanding of informed consent for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2016Article
- Self-gripping mesh versus fibrin glue fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized prospective clinical trial in young and elderly patients.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2016Article
- Excellence and safety in surgery require excellent and safe tutoring.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2016Article
- The learning curve of laparoscopic holecystectomy in general surgery resident training: old age of the patient may be a risk factor?Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2016Article
- Learning curve for endorectal ultrasound in young and elderly: lights and shades.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2016Article
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
backgroundOnly few studies have compared laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) and open total mesorectal excision (OTME) for rectal cancer with follow-up longer than 5 years. The aim of this study was to compare 10-year oncologic outcomes after LTME and OTME for nonmetastatic rectal cancer.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of rectal cancer patients undergoing LTME or OTME. Statistical analyses were performed on an ''intention-to-treat'' basis and by actual treatment. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared by using the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor survival.
resultsBetween April 1994 and August 2005, a total of 153 LTME patients and 154 OTME patients were included. Similarly, 10-year OS and DFS after LTME and OTME were observed: 76.8 versus 70.6 % (P = 0.138) and 69.1 versus 67.6 % (P = 0.508), respectively. Conversion to OTME did not adversely affect OS and DFS. Stage-by-stage comparison showed no significant differences between LTME and OTME. No significant differences were observed in local recurrence rates after LTME and OTME (6.5 vs. 7.8 %, P = 0.837). Median time until local recurrence was 24.5 (range, 12-56) months after LTME and 22 (6-64) months after OTME (P = 0.777). Poor tumor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, and a lymph node ratio of 0.25 or more were the independent predictors of poorer OS and DFS.
conclusionThis retrospective study with long follow-up did not show significant differences between the two groups in OS and DFS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27417110What 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.