ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment2018
Security and Radical Assessment in Open, Laparoscopic, Robotic Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Comparative Study.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of perioperative outcomes for da Vinci robotic-assisted, laparoscopic and open surgery in oncologic procedures: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of evidence from China.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Analysis of antinuclear antibody pattern distribution and correlation in patients with colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in improving the outcome of surgical treatment in colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Article
- Laparoscopic Radical Resection versus Routine Surgery for Colorectal Cancer.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Colorectal Cancer Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment. A New Era.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Review
- Effects of laparoscopic radical surgery in the treatment of colorectal cancer and correlations of VEGF and TGF-β1 with prognosis.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- The MicroHand S robotic-assisted versus Da Vinci robotic-assisted radical resection for patients with sigmoid colon cancer: a single-center retrospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Application of artificial intelligence to the diagnosis and therapy of colorectal cancer.American journal of cancer research · 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
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis retrospective study was designed to assess the safety and effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, robotic colorectal cancer surgery.
methodsThree hundred patients with colorectal cancer who underwent curative resection in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University between February 2014 and May 2016 were included. Patients were classified into open surgery group, laparoscopic surgery group, and robot-assisted group.
resultsThe blood loss in laparoscopic surgery group was less than that in open surgery group, and the blood loss in robot-assisted group less was than the open surgery group. The number of lymph node dissection in robot-assisted group was significantly larger than that in the open group ( P < .05). The distance between the lower edge of the tumor group and the distal margin in robotic group was longer than that of the laparoscopic surgery group and the open group ( P < .05). Three (2.8%) cases of urinary retention occurred in the open surgery group, 4 (3.92%) cases in the laparoscopic surgery group, and 1 (1.1%) case in the robot-assisted group, while 2 (1.87%) cases of sexual dysfunction occurred in the open surgery group, 2 (1.96%) cases in the laparoscopic surgery group, and 1 (1.1%) case in the robot-assisted group. The urinary retention and sexual dysfunction rate did not differ between the 3 groups ( P > .05), but the minimally invasive group showed a certain advantage over the open group.
conclusionCompared to the traditional open surgery, minimally invasive surgery (especially in robot-assisted group) has advantages such as less intraoperative bleeding, rapid postoperative recovery, and radical cure; open group, laparoscopic surgery group, and robot-assisted group have a similar incidence of postoperative complications, but reduction in the incidence of anastomotic leakage and intestinal obstruction. Robot-assisted group has the potential advantage for pelvic autonomic nerve protection.
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.