SynthesisOncotarget2017
The comprehensive therapeutic effects of rectal surgery are better in laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mid- and low-rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs open treatment-short- and long-term results. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Pooled it
- Surgical resection for rectal cancer. Is laparoscopic surgery as successful as open approach? A systematic review with meta-analysis.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic vs open rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Pooled it
- Total neoadjuvant therapy followed by total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in older patients real world data and proof of concept.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: recommendations from the SICG (Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery), SIFIPAC (Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology), SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies), and the WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) International Consensus Project.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2021Article
- [Robotic-assisted surgery of rectal cancer-Technique, limitations and results].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Review
- Age and comorbidities do not affect short-term outcomes after laparoscopic rectal cancer resection in elderly patients. A multi-institutional cohort study in 287 patients.Updates in surgery · 2021Article
- Modes of carbon dioxide delivery during laparoscopy generate distinct differences in peritoneal damage and hypoxia in a porcine model.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Trans-perineal minimally invasive surgery during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Is there still a place for open surgery in the treatment strategy of rectal cancer?Przeglad gastroenterologiczny · 2018Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic-assisted radical resection of rectal cancer was reported as advantageous compared to laparotomy resection. However, this finding remains controversial, especially given the two recent randomized controlled trials published on The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
objectiveTo perform a meta-analysis that compares the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer. DATA SOURCE: To identify clinical trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer published by August 2016, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Springer Link and Clinicaltrials.gov databases by combining various key words. Data were extracted from every identified study to perform a meta-analysis using the Review Manager 5.3 software.
resultsA total of 43 articles from 38 studies with a total of 13408 patients were included. Although laparoscopic radical rectectomy increased operation time (MD = 37.23, 95% CI: 28.88 to 45.57, P < 0.0001), it can significantly decrease the blood loss (MD = -143.13, 95% CI: -183.48 to -102.78, P < 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (MD = -0.97, 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.59, P < 0.0001), length of hospital stay (MD = -2.40, 95% CI: -3.10 to -1.70, P < 0.0001), postoperative complications (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.86, P < 0.0001), mortality (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.57, P < 0.0001) and the CRM positive rate (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.75, P < 0.0001). No significant difference were noted between the groups regarding intraoperative complications, TME completeness and harvesting of lymph nodes. Regarding the long-term survival data, the laparoscopic group was not inferior to laparotomy. Some pooled data, such as 3-year DFS, 5-year OS and 5-year local recurrence were even superior for the laparoscopic group.
conclusionsGiven the definite benefits in short-term outcomes and trending benefits in long-term outcomes that were observed, we recommend laparoscopic surgery be used for rectal cancer resection.
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.