Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27709329›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017

Assessment of treatment options for rectosigmoid cancer: single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, and conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Ruoyan Liu, Yanan Wang, Ze Zhang, Tingting Li, Hao Liu, Liying Zhao, Haijun Deng, Guoxin Li

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ruoyan LiuDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 North Guangzhou Avenue, 510-515, Guangzhou, China.
Yanan WangDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 North Guangzhou Avenue, 510-515, Guangzhou, China.
Ze ZhangDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 North Guangzhou Avenue, 510-515, Guangzhou, China.
Tingting LiDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 North Guangzhou Avenue, 510-515, Guangzhou, China.
Hao LiuDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 North Guangzhou Avenue, 510-515, Guangzhou, China.
Liying ZhaoDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 North Guangzhou Avenue, 510-515, Guangzhou, China.
Haijun DengDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 North Guangzhou Avenue, 510-515, Guangzhou, China. navyd999@163.com.
Guoxin LiDepartment of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 North Guangzhou Avenue, 510-515, Guangzhou, China. gzliguoxin@163.com.
Southern Medical University · CNNanfang Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe advantages of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) for rectosigmoid cancer treatment have been disputed. This study evaluated the outcomes of RPLS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for rectosigmoid cancer.

methodsData from 211 patients who underwent a selective sigmoidectomy or anterior resection from August 2011 to June 2014 at a single institution were collected and analyzed via propensity score matching. Operative outcomes, inflammatory responses, pain intensity, oncologic outcomes, quality of life, and cosmetic results were compared between groups.

resultsAfter matching, 96 patients (48 CLS and 48 RPLS) were evaluated. Sixteen RPLS cases underwent single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and 32 underwent single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1). Baseline clinical characteristics were comparable between the RPLS and the CLS groups. Morbidity, pathologic outcomes, and 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were also comparable between the 2 groups. Compared with the CLS group, the RPLS group had a shorter total incision length (p < 0.001); shorter time to liquid diet (p = 0.027), ambulation (p = 0.026), and discharge (p < 0.001); and lower visual analogue scale scores during mobilization at postoperative days 3-5 (p < 0.05). The total operation times, C-reactive protein levels at 24 h and 96 h, and interleukin-6 levels at 24 h postoperatively were significantly lower in the SILS + 1 group than those in the CLS and SILS groups (p < 0.05). Compared with the CLS group, the RPLS group showed better social functioning at 6 months postoperatively (p = 0.011). The SILS and SILS + 1 groups showed similar cosmetic results, and both groups showed better results than the CLS group (p < 0.001).

conclusionsRPLS for rectosigmoid cancer is feasible, with short-term safety and long-term oncological safety comparable to that of CLS. Better cosmesis and accelerated recovery can be expected. SILS + 1 is a better choice than CLS or SILS for rectosigmoid cancer because it minimizes invasiveness and reduces technical difficulties.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDatabases, FactualFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreRectal NeoplasmsSigmoid NeoplasmsSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeColorectal cancerCosmesisInflammatory responsesPropensity scoreRectosigmoidSingle-incision laparoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID27709329
OpenAlexW2529014382

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.