ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2018
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Laparoscopic-Assisted and Minilaparotomy Approaches for Colon Cancer.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive surgeryWorld journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- Which Is Important: Incision Length or Oncological Outcome?Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2017Article
- Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted surgery, mini-laparotomy and conventional laparotomy in patients with Stage I-III colorectal cancer.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe minilaparotomy approach is feasible for the resection of colon cancer. This study aimed to compare the clinical and oncological outcomes of minilaparotomy and laparoscopic approaches in patients with colon cancer.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing minilaparotomy or laparoscopic resection for colon cancer from January 2009 to December 2014.
resultsThere were 376 patients with colon cancer. Seventy-one patients were excluded. The remaining 305 patients were allocated to the minilaparotomy (n = 146) group or laparoscopic group (n = 159). The demographic data of the two groups was similar except for body mass index. The time to first bowel movement (P = 0.000) and the hospital stay (P = 0.005) were less in the laparoscopic group. Compared with the minilaparotomy group, the mean operation time was longer and the costs higher for laparoscopic group (P = 0.000). The morbidity, mortality, and local recurrence were comparable between the two groups. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were also similar (overall survival is 75.3 vs. 72.9%, P = 0.648; disease-free survival is 66.2 vs. 70.2%, P = 0.914).
conclusionThe minilaparotomy approach was safe and equivalent to laparoscopic approach for patients with colon cancer. It is an alternative to the laparoscopic approach in selected patients.
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.