ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2017
Comparison of the clinical results of abdominoperanal intersphincteric resection and abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Abdominoperineal Resection on Postoperative Male Sexual Function After Minimally Invasive Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Subgroup Analysis From the LANDMARC Study.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluation of long-term oncological outcomes of inter-sphincter resection compared with abdominoperineal resection for treatment of ultra-low rectal cancers: a single center 5-year experience.Surgery in practice and science · 2023Article
- Comparison between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2022Article
- Comparison of oncologic outcome of abdominoperineal resection versus sphincter saving resection for low lying rectal cancer.Korean journal of clinical oncology · 2021Article
- Low anterior resection syndrome: can it be prevented?International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the oncologic results of abdominoperanal intersphincteric resection (ISR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR).
methodsBetween 2003 and 2014, 277 consecutive patients with stage I-III low rectal cancer located within 5 cm from the anal verge underwent curative ISR and APR. A retrospective comparison of these two procedures was performed.
resultsOverall, 128 patients underwent ISR and 149 underwent APR. The ISR group had earlier clinical stages and shorter distal margins (p < 0.01). The 5-year relapse-free survival rates in patients who underwent ISR/APR were 84.7/74.7% with T1-2 tumors and 51.3/67.6% with T3-4 tumors. In T3-4 tumors, the rate of local recurrence was higher in the ISR group (13.2%) than in the APR group (3.8%). The 5-year relapse-free survival rates in patients who underwent ISR/APR were 89.7/92.3% for stage I cases, 84.4/87.5% for stage II cases, and 39.8/51.8% for stage III cases. Patients with stage III tumors had high rates of distant recurrence in both groups (24.3 vs. 26.3%).
conclusionISR is a feasible surgical procedure for T1-2 tumors. Patients with stage III tumors should be considered for adjuvant therapy to control distant recurrence regardless of the surgical procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28091845What 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.