Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27784311›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2016

Two-port laparoscopic anterior resection through a self-made glove device versus conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparison of short-term surgical results.

Hong Zhang, Yunzhi Ling, Jinchun Cong, Mingming Cui, Dingsheng Liu, Chunsheng Chen

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hong ZhangDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, No. 36 SanHao St, Heping District, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110004, China. haojiubujian1203@sina.cn.
Yunzhi LingDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, No. 36 SanHao St, Heping District, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110004, China.
Jinchun CongDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, No. 36 SanHao St, Heping District, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110004, China.
Mingming CuiDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, No. 36 SanHao St, Heping District, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110004, China.
Dingsheng LiuDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, No. 36 SanHao St, Heping District, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110004, China.
Chunsheng ChenDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, No. 36 SanHao St, Heping District, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110004, China.
China Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe laparoscopic approach has become increasingly incorporated into the development of new surgical procedures. An ever-increasing number of surgeons desire methods that minimize surgical trauma and provide improved cosmetic outcomes. Since 2014, we have performed two-port laparoscopic surgery using a transumbilical multichannel glove port and a 12-mm port. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term surgical results of two-port laparoscopic anterior resection (TPLAR) with those of conventional laparoscopic anterior resection (CLAR) for rectal cancer.

methodsBetween January 2014 and May 2014, a total of 27 patients underwent TPLAR and 30 patients underwent CLAR for the treatment of rectal cancer. The short-term surgical results of these two groups of patients were analyzed retrospectively.

resultsThe differences in operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, complication rate, distal resection margin, number of harvested lymph nodes, duration until ambulation, duration until first flatus, length of postoperative hospital stay, and overall hospital costs between the two groups were not significant. The median (range) length of the abdominal incisions of the TPLAR patients was shorter than the length of the CLAR patients (5.1 (4.5-16.3) cm vs 8.2 (7.0-10.0) cm, respectively; p < 0.001). The respective median (range) postoperative pain scores were lower in the TPLAR than in the CLAR patients at 24 h (4 (1-6) h vs 5 (2-8) h; p = 0.045), 48 h (3 (1-4) h vs 4 (range 1-8) h; P = 0.004) and 72 h (1 (0-3) h vs 2 (1-5) h; p = 0.010). The median overall score on the satisfaction-with-abdominal-incision questionnaire of the TPLAR patients was significantly higher (better) than the score of the CLAR patients.

conclusionsTPLAR for rectal cancer is safe and feasible, with short-term perioperative and oncological outcomes similar to those of CLAR. TPLAR provides less postoperative pain and better cosmetic outcomes.

Indexed as

Postoperative ComplicationsAdultAgedElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRectal NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesAnterior resectionGlove portRectal cancerReduced-port laparoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID27784311
PMCPMC5082354
OpenAlexW2541941145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.