Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28795243›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2017

There is no difference in outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes.

M Pędziwiatr, P Małczak, M Mizera, J Witowski, G Torbicz, P Major, M Pisarska, M Wysocki, A Budzyński

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

M Pędziwiatr2nd Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kopernika 21, 31-501, Kraków, Poland. michal.pedziwiatr@uj.edu.pl.
P Małczak2nd Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kopernika 21, 31-501, Kraków, Poland.
M Mizera2nd Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kopernika 21, 31-501, Kraków, Poland.
J Witowski2nd Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kopernika 21, 31-501, Kraków, Poland.
G Torbicz2nd Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kopernika 21, 31-501, Kraków, Poland.
P Major2nd Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kopernika 21, 31-501, Kraków, Poland.
M Pisarska2nd Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kopernika 21, 31-501, Kraków, Poland.
M Wysocki2nd Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kopernika 21, 31-501, Kraków, Poland.
A Budzyński2nd Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kopernika 21, 31-501, Kraków, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUntil recently there has been little data available about long-term outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. But new randomized controlled trials regarding laparoscopic colorectal surgery have been published. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery for rectal cancer through a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of relevant RCTs.

methodsA systematic review of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library from January 1966 to October 2016 with a subsequent meta-analysis was performed. Only randomized controlled trials with data on circumferential resection margins were included. The primary outcome was the status of circumferential resection margins. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, distal resection margins, disease-free and overall survival rates for 3 and 5 years and local recurrence rates.

resultsEleven studies were evaluated, involving a total of 2018 patients in the laparoscopic group and 1526 patients in the open group. The presence of involved circumferential margins was reported in all studies. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of positive circumferential margins between the laparoscopic group and open group, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89-1.50 and no significant differences in involvement of distal margins (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.35-3.66), completeness of mesorectal excision (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.82-1.82) or number of harvested lymph nodes (mean difference = -0.01, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.87). Disease-free survival rates at 3 and 5 years were not different (p = 0.26 and p = 0.71 respectively), and neither were overall survival rates (p = 0.19 and p = 0.64 respectively), nor local recurrence rates (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.63-1.23).

conclusionsLaparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with similar short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery. The oncologic quality of extracted specimens seems comparable regardless of the approach used.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyMargins of ExcisionDisease-Free SurvivalHumansLymph Node ExcisionNeoplasm, ResidualRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRectal NeoplasmsSurvival RateTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeCircumferential resection marginLaparoscopyLocal recurrenceMeta-analysisRectal cancerSurvivalTotal mesorectal excision

Identifiers

PMID28795243
PMCPMC5602007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.