SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2017
Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection versus an open approach for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive model for sphincter preservation in lower rectal cancer.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Long-term functional and prognostic outcomes of robotic intersphincteric resection for treating low rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for patients with low rectal cancer: Short-term outcomes.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2025Article
- Risk factors of anastomotic leak in colorectal cancer: a multicentric study in a Latin American country.Ecancermedicalscience · 2024Article
- Long-term outcomes and failure patterns after laparoscopic intersphincteric resection in ultralow rectal cancers.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- Predictive Factors for Anastomotic Leakage Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Robotic vs. laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a case matched study reporting a median of 7-year long-term oncological and functional outcomes.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- Locally advanced rectal mucinous adenocarcinoma: is preoperative radiation necessary?Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Article
- Efficacy of intraoperative fluorescence imaging using indocyanine green-containing gauze in identifying the appropriate dissection layer in laparoscopic intersphincteric resection: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2022Article
- Clinical effects of prophylactic transverse colostomy in patients undergoing completely laparoscopic transabdominal approach partial intersphincteric resection.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Article
- Clinical efficacy of different approaches for laparoscopic intersphincteric resection of low rectal cancer: a comparison study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Updates of Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage after Colorectal Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes.Annals of coloproctology · 2021Review
- Transanal (TaTME) vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of early and long-term outcomes.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Article
- Review
- Laparoscopic and open surgery in rectal cancer patients in Germany: short and long-term results of a large 10-year population-based cohort.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Latest Advances in Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2020Review
- Long Term Results of Modified Intersphincteric Resections for Low Rectal Cancer: A Single Center Experience.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to compare the short-term and mid-term effects of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection with the conventional open approach for patients with low rectal cancer through a meta-analysis.
methodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Ovid databases were searched for eligible studies until March 2017. Operation time, blood loss, circumferential resection margin-positive rate, distal margin length, number of resected lymph nodes, diverting stoma rate, postoperative overall morbidity, anastomotic leakage, and hospital stay were the main short-term effect endpoints. We also examined disease-free survival, overall survival, local recurrence, and post-operational anal function as secondary outcomes to evaluate the mid-term effects of laparoscopic surgery.
resultsFive studies involving 620 patients were included in the analyses. Compared with the open approach, the laparoscopic ISR had less blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD] = - 214.65 ml, 95% CI [- 370.44, - 196.13], p < 0.01), less postoperative overall morbidity (OR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.40, 0.86], p < 0.01), and shorter duration of hospital stay (WMD = - 5.87 days, 95% CI [- 11.35, - 0.40], p < 0.05); however, the operation time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (WMD = 47.34 min, 95% CI [4.10, 90.58], p < 0.05). No other significant differences were observed.
conclusionLaparoscopic ISR for low rectal cancer offers fewer complications and faster recovery, with similar operation quality and mid-term oncological results than the conventional approach. Although this technique is comparatively more complex than the conventional approach and requires practice, laparoscopic ISR shows great potential as a surgical option and deserves further clinical study.
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.