Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28667498›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2017

Colorectal cancer surgery in the very elderly patient: a systematic review of laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection.

Laurence Devoto, Valerio Celentano, Richard Cohen, Jim Khan, Manish Chand

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 68 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Laurence DevotoDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Valerio CelentanoDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK. valeriocelentano@yahoo.it.
Richard CohenDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Jim KhanDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
Manish ChandDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust · GBRoyal London Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionColorectal cancer is the second most common cause of death from neoplastic disease in men and third in women of all ages. Globally, life expectancy is increasing, and consequently, an increasing number of operations are being performed on more elderly patients with the trend set to continue. Elderly patients are more likely to have cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities that are associated with increased peri-operative risk. They further tend to present with more locally advanced disease, more likely to obstruct or have disseminated disease. The aim of this review was to investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic colorectal resection in very elderly patients, and whether there are benefits over open surgery for colorectal cancer.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed on Medline, Pubmed, Embase and Google Scholar. All comparative studies evaluating patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer in the patients population over 85 were included. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day overall morbidity. Secondary outcomes were operating time, time to oral diet, number of retrieved lymph nodes, blood loss and 5-year survival.

resultsThe search provided 1507 citations. Sixty-nine articles were retrieved for full text analysis, and only six retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall mortality for elective laparoscopic resection was 2.92% and morbidity 23%. No single study showed a significant difference between laparoscopic and open surgery for morbidity or mortality, but pooled data analysis demonstrated reduced morbidity in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.032). Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery are more likely to have a shorter hospital stay and a shorter time to oral diet.

conclusionElective laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer in the over 85 age group is feasible and safe and offers similar advantages over open surgery to those demonstrated in patients of younger ages.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyAged, 80 and overAge FactorsClinical Decision-MakingColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsComorbidityElective Surgical ProceduresHumansPatient SelectionPostoperative ComplicationsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeColorectal cancerElderlyLaparoscopic colorectal surgerySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28667498
OpenAlexW2729192617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.