Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2019
Short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid cancer: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02117557 (A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Transumbilical Single Incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 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.
A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Transumbilical Single Incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopy surgery versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Pooled it
- Single incision laparoscopy versus conventional multiport laparoscopy for colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023Pooled it
- Is Single-Incision Laparoscopic Liver Surgery Safe and Efficient for the Treatment of Malignant Hepatic Tumors? A Systematic Review.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Hydromorphone is Noninferior to Dexamethasone as an Adjuvant to Ropivacaine for Transversus Abdominis Plane Block After Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial.Journal of pain research · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Two-portWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of single-incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Evaluating the safety and efficacy of SILS and SILS+1 port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal resection: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of RCTs.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Advantages of the split-leg supine position single-port plus one laparoscopic surgery approach.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Single-incision Laparoscopic Colonic Surgery: A Systemic Review, Meta-analysis, and Future Prospect.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2024Review
- Short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity-matched cohort study with conventional laparoscopic surgery.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Clinical outcomes of single incision laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis between well-experienced and novice surgeons.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Article
- Clinical application of two-port laparoscopic surgery in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Comparison of short-term outcomes between single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for distal gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial.Translational cancer research · 2022Article
- Natural orifice versus conventional mini-laparotomy for specimen extraction after reduced-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: propensity score-matched comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Effect of single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery assisted with enhanced recovery after surgery on colorectal cancer: study protocol for a single-arm trial.Translational cancer research · 2021Article
- Comparative study on short-term efficacy of single incision plus one (SI+1) port and multiportal 3D laparoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Article
- Short-term clinical and oncological outcomes after single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid cancer: a retrospective clinical analysis of 30 cases.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- A learning curve in using organ retractor for single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Analgesic Efficacy of Nefopam as an Adjuvant in Patient-Controlled Analgesia for Acute Postoperative Pain After Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of the study is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port surgery (SILS + 1) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer.
backgroundAt present, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy remains technically challenging. The use of SILS + 1 as an alternative has gained increasing attention; however, its safety and efficacy remain controversial. METHODS AND PATIENTS: Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2 M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The morbidity and mortality within 30 days, operative and pathologic outcomes, postoperative recovery course, inflammation and immune responses, and pain intensity were compared.
resultsThere was no significant difference in overall complications between the two groups (17.2 vs. 16.3%, P = 1.000). The total operating time for the SILS + 1 group was significantly shorter (100.8 ± 30.4 vs. 116.6 ± 36.6, P = 0.002). Blood loss was significantly greater in the CLS group (20 vs. 50, P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (14%) in the CLS group required additional postoperative analgesics, which was significantly more than four patients in the SILS + 1 group. Notably, on postoperative day three, the visual analogue scale score of the CLS group was greater than that of the SILS + 1 group (1.3 ± 1.1 vs. 1.7 ± 1.3, P = 0.023). Tumor diameter, pathologic stage, length of the proximal and distal margins, and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar, other values were also similar between the two groups.
conclusionOur findings suggest that SILS + 1 might be safe and feasible for rectosigmoid cancer when performed by experienced surgeons. It offers minimal invasiveness without compromising oncologic treatment principles. Trial Registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02117557).
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.