Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27627964›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2016

Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for T4 colon cancer: A propensity score analysis.

Nicola de'Angelis, Giulio Cesare Vitali, Francesco Brunetti, Charles-Henri Wassmer, Charlotte Gagniere, Giacomo Puppa, Christophe Tournigand, Frédéric Ris

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. [Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the colon and rectum].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Short- and long-term outcomes following laparoscopicWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2018
    Article
  19. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicola de'AngelisUnit of Digestive, Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor Hospital, AP-HP, Créteil, France. nic.deangelis@yahoo.it.
Giulio Cesare VitaliDivisions of Transplant and Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Francesco BrunettiUnit of Digestive, Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor Hospital, AP-HP, Créteil, France.
Charles-Henri WassmerDivisions of Transplant and Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Charlotte GagniereDepartment of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Henri Mondor Hospital, AP-HP, Creteil, France.
Giacomo PuppaDivision of Clinical Pathology, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Christophe TournigandMedical Oncology Department, Henri Mondor Hospital, AP-HP, Créteil, France.
Frédéric RisDivisions of Transplant and Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
University of Geneva · CHAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRHôpitaux Universitaires Henri-Mondor · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe study aimed to compare, using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses, the short- and long-term results of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) versus open colectomy (OC) in a bicentric cohort of patients with T4 colon cancer.

methodsThis is a retrospective PSM analysis of consecutive patients undergoing elective LC or OC for pT4 colon cancer (TNM stage II/III) between 2005 and 2014.

resultsOverall, 237 patients were selected. After PSM, 106 LC-and 106 OC-matched patients were compared. LC was associated with longer operative time and lower blood loss than OC (220 vs. 190 min, p < 0.0001; 116 vs. 150 mL, p = 0.002, respectively). LC patients showed a faster recovery, which translated into a shorter hospital stay compared to OC (10.5 vs. 15.3 days, p < 0.0001). Conversion was required in 13 (12.2 %) LC patients. No group difference was observed for 30- and 90-day mortality. R0 resection was achieved in the majority of LC and OC patients (93.9 %). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival was 99, 76.8, and 58.6 %, respectively, for the LC group and 98, 70.1, and 59.9 %, respectively, for the OC group (p = 0.864). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival was 86.3, 66, 57.6 %, respectively, for the LC group and 79.1, 55.1, and 50.2 % for the OC group (p = 0.261).

conclusionWith an acceptable conversion rate, laparoscopy can achieve complete oncologic resections of T4 colon cancer similar to open surgery and can be considered a safe and feasible alternative approach that confers the advantage of a faster recovery.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPropensity ScoreAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColonic NeoplasmsDemographyFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPostoperative CareProportional Hazards ModelsColon cancerLaparoscopic colectomyLocally advanced colon cancerOpen colectomyPropensity score matching

Identifiers

PMID27627964
OpenAlexW2519070601

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.