ArticleSurgery today2018
A comparison of the long-term anorectal function between laparoscopic intersphincteric resection and low anterior resection for low rectal cancer.
Article in Surgery today, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-Reported Outcomes and Surgical Results of Hand-Sewn Versus Stapled Anastomosis for Lower Rectal Cancer Located 4-5 cm From the Anal Verge: A Subanalysis of the Ultimate Study.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2025Article
- Modern Approaches to Rectal Cancer: Integrating Endoscopic, Surgical, and Oncological Care.Cancers · 2025Review
- Article
- Treatment Options for Distal Rectal Cancer in the Era of Organ Preservation.Current treatment options in oncology · 2024Review
- Parachute-like pull-through anastomosis for low rectal cancer: a new method for preservation of anal function.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Clinical efficacy of different approaches for laparoscopic intersphincteric resection of low rectal cancer: a comparison study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Risk Factors for Anorectal Dysfunction After Interspincteric Resection in Patients With Low Rectal Cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
- Prediction of surgical difficulty in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer by use of MRI pelvimetry.BJS open · 2020Article
- Latest Advances in Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the time-course change in the postoperative anorectal function between laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR) and low anterior resection (LAR).
methodsThis is a single-institution observational study. We evaluated the time-course change in the anorectal function using functional questionnaires before and at 6, 12, and 24 months after laparoscopic ISR or LAR.
resultsSixty-two patients answered the functional questionnaires (28 in the ISR group and 34 in the LAR group). In the ISR group, the Wexner scores at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively were significantly higher than preoperatively. Importantly, the Wexner score at 24 months postoperatively was significantly lower than that at 6 months postoperatively. The low GIFO scores at 6 and 12 months postoperatively tended to be recovered to some extent at 24 months postoperatively. In the LAR group, Wexner score at 6 months postoperatively was significantly higher than that preoperatively. Notably, the Wexner score at 12 months postoperatively was recovered to almost the same as that preoperatively. The GIFO scores at 12 months postoperatively were mostly recovered to the same levels as those preoperatively.
conclusionsLaparoscopic ISR exhibits different time-course changes in the anorectal function from laparoscopic LAR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29752529What 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.