Observational studyMedicine2017
Comparative study of short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted versus open rectal cancer resection during and after the learning curve period.
Observational study in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- The learning curve of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excisions: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluation of the learning curve for conformal sphincter preservation operation in the treatment of ultralow rectal cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Improving postoperative outcome in rectal cancer surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in an era of increasing laparoscopic resection.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Observational
- Laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: Economic and clinical outcomes in the Brazilian healthcare.Medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic-assisted rectal resection (LAR) has been widely used to treat rectal cancer. However, it has a steep learning curve. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of the learning curve on the outcomes of LAR. All consecutive patients with rectal cancer undergoing LAR or open resection (OR) between 2010 and 2015 were included in this retrospective analysis. The learning curve was determined, and patients were divided into 2 phases: the learning curve and the expert period. The short-term perioperative data in the 2 phases and the long-term survival in the learning phase were compared between the LAR and OR groups. A total of 491 patients were included in this study. Inflection of the learning curve based on the operation time of LAR was at the 40th case. A total of 233 patients underwent surgery (112 LAR and 121 OR) during the learning period. In this period, LAR had a longer operation time, less blood loss, and a higher total cost (all P < .05). The 3-year overall survival rates between the LAR and OR groups were similar (69.74% vs 75%; P = .32). A total of 258 patients underwent surgery (169 LAR and 89 OR) during the expert period. Significant differences in total cost, estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and recovery of bladder and bowel functions were identified in this period (all P < .05). LAR during the learning period has fewer benefits in terms of postoperative recovery than OR. However, the long-term outcomes are equivalent.
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.