ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2016
Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer: What is the impact on short-term outcomes and survival?
Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 7 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery for patients with obesity: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of Unplanned Intra-Operative Conversions on Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy.World journal of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Is the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program Effective and Safe in Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Pooled it
- Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2019Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of short-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery on colorectal carcinoma.Medicine · 2017Pooled it
- There is no difference in outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes.Techniques in coloproctology · 2017Pooled it
- Institution-level framework to estimate the impact of BMI on operative decision-making in patients undergoing colorectal surgery in a provincial cohort.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Colonic Intussusception in Adults: A Case Report of an Unusual Cause of Abdominal Pain.Cureus · 2025Article
- Transitioning to da Vinci Xi for colorectal cancer surgery: a prospective cohort study of 102 cases from a UK centre with a structured robotic programme.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Splenic flexure mobilization: does body topography matter?Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Article
- Management of Patients with Colorectal Cancer through Fast-Track Surgery.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- An artificial intelligence-designed predictive calculator of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy in colon cancer.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Impact of type of minimally invasive approach on open conversions across ten common procedures in different specialties.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer is associated with quicker return of bowel function, reduced postoperative morbidity rates and shorter length of hospital stay compared to open surgery, with no differences in long-term survival. Conversion to open surgery is reported in up to 30% of patients enrolled in randomized control trials comparing open and laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer. In this review, reasons for conversion are anatomical-related factors, disease-related-factors and surgeon-related factors. Body mass index, local tumour extension and co-morbidities are independent predictors of conversion. The current evidence has shown that patients with converted resection for colon cancer have similar outcomes compared to patients undergoing a laparoscopic completed or open resection. The few studies that have assessed the outcomes after conversion of laparoscopic rectal resection reported significantly higher rates of complications and longer length of hospital stay in converted patients compared to laparoscopically treated patients. No definitive conclusions can be drawn when converted and open rectal resections are compared. Early and pre-emptive conversion appears to have more favourable outcomes than reactive conversion; however, further large studies are needed to better define the optimal timing of conversion. With regard to long-term oncologic outcome, overall and disease-free survival in the case of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery seems to be worse than those achieved in patients in whom resection was successfully completed by laparoscopy. Although a worse long-term oncologic outcome has been suggested, it remains difficult to draw a proper conclusion due to the heterogeneity of the long-term outcomes as well as the inclusion of both colon and rectal cancer patients in most of the studies. Therefore, we discuss the currently available evidence of the impact of conversion in laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer on both short-term outcomes and long-term survival.
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.