Trial reportWorld journal of surgical oncology2017
Case-matched study of short-term effects of 3D vs 2D laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer.
Trial report in World journal of surgical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The efficacy of ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison between 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional endoscopic thyroidectomy for benign and malignant lesions: a meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of short-term surgical outcome between 3D and 2D laparoscopy surgery for gastrointestinal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Comparison of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Pooled it
- Three-dimensionalIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Pooled it
- Incidence of intestinal obstruction after sigmoid extraperitoneal colostomy combined with pelvic peritoneal closure in abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Three-dimensional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A 2-year follow-up study at Hue Central Hospital.Surgery open science · 2024Article
- Which video technology brings the higher cognitive burden and motion sickness in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: 3D, 2D-4 K or 3D-4 K? a propensity score study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Article
- Two-dimensional (2-D) vs. three-dimensional (3-D) laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis for colon cancer: comparison of short-term results.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Three-dimensional (3D) system versus two-dimensional (2D) system for laparoscopic resection of adrenal tumors: a case-control study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Article
- A laparoscopic study investigating 3D vs 2D imaging systems using a pelvitrainer model with experts, non-experts, and students.BMC surgery · 2020Article
- MYL6B drives the capabilities of proliferation, invasion, and migration in rectal adenocarcinoma through the EMT process.Open life sciences · 2020Article
- The usefulness of three-dimensional video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2019Article
- Three-dimensional Stereoscopic Visualization Shortens Operative Time in Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.Scientific reports · 2019Article
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 purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the security and efficacy of 3D vs 2D laparoscopy in rectal cancer treatment.
methodsForty-six patients who suffered from rectal cancer and went on laparoscopic radical resection of rectal carcinoma in Peking University Shougang Hospital from Feb. 2015 to Mar. 2016 were included in the study. They were randomly divided into two groups. The 23 patients operated with the 3D system were compared with 23 patients operated with the 2D system by perioperative data.
resultsThere were no significant differences in age, sex, pathological type, tumor differentiation, TNM staging, and surgical procedures (P > 0.05). The average operating time of 3D laparoscopic surgery group (172.2 ± 27.5 min) was shorter than that of 2D group (192.6 ± 22.3) (P < 0.05); the rate of transfer to laparotomy is lower in 2D group (72.7%) than in 3D group (86.4%), but they have no significant difference; and the intraoperative blood loss (247.0 ± 173.6 ml vs 282.6 ± 195.6 ml), postoperative passage of flatus (2.8 ± 0.8 days vs 3.1 ± 1.0 days), and indwelling catheter time (5.6 ± 1.9 days vs 6.3 ± 2.0 days) in 3D group and 2D group (P > 0.05) were not significantly different. There were no differences in other complications between the two groups. No significantly different recrudescence and death rates were found between the two groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe 3D laparoscopy shortens the operation time of rectum cancer. 3D laparoscopic surgery is more efficient in treatment of rectal cancer than 2D laparoscopy and is worth of being generalized.
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.