SynthesisPloS one2018
Surgical resection for rectal cancer. Is laparoscopic surgery as successful as open approach? A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomy: insights from a single centre.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparing total mesorectal excision with partial mesorectal excision for proximal rectal cancer: evaluating postoperative and long-term oncological outcomes.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Implementation of robotic rectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional nationwide study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- The Role of Indocyanine Near-Infrared Fluorescence in Colorectal Surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Renal outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a propensity score analysis.Kidney research and clinical practice · 2021Article
- Current trends in three-dimensional visualization and real-time navigation as well as robot-assisted technologies in hepatobiliary surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Review
- Robotic Colorectal Cancer Surgery. How to Reach Expertise? A Single Surgeon-Experience.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Long-term oncologic result of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Article
- [Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the colon and rectum].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Review
- Potential considerations in decision making on laparoscopic colorectal resections in Hungary based on administrative data.PloS one · 2021Article
- Long-Term Functional Results of a Modified Caudal-to-Cranial Approach in Laparoscopic Segmental Left Colectomy for Diverticular Disease.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic Approach to Rectal Cancer-The New Standard?Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- Incidence and risk factors of portomesenteric venous thrombosis after colorectal surgery for cancer in the elderly population.World journal of surgical oncology · 2019Article
- Reconsideration of the Safety of Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery for Cancer.Annals of coloproctology · 2019Review
- Barbed Suture and Gastrointestinal Surgery. A Retrospective Analysis.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, it has been questioned if minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer was surgically successful. We decided to perform a meta-analysis to determine if minimally invasive surgery is adequate to obtain a complete resection for curable rectal cancer.
methodsA systematic search pertaining to evaluation between laparoscopic and open rectal resection for rectal cancer was performed until 30th November 2016 in the electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE), using the following search terms in all possible combinations: rectal cancer, laparoscopy, minimally invasive and open surgery. Outcomes analyzed were number of clear Distal Resection Margins (DRM or DM), complete Circumferential Resection Margins (CRM) and complete, nearly complete and incomplete Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) and of patients who received laparoscopic or open treatment for rectal cancer.
results12 articles were included in the final analysis. The prevalence of successful surgical resection was similar between open and laparoscopic surgery. About distance from distal margin of the specimen, clear CRM and complete TME there were no statistically significant difference between the two groups (MD = -0.090 cm, p = 0.364, 95% CI -0.283, 0.104; OR = 1.032, p = 0.821, 95% CI 0.784, 1.360; OR = 0.933, p = 0.720, 95% CI 0.638, 1.364, respectively). The analysis of nearly complete TME showed a significant difference between the two groups (OR = 1.407, p = 0.006, 95% CI 1.103, 1.795), while the analysis of incomplete TME showed a non-significant difference (OR = 1.010, p = 0.964, 95% CI 0.664, 1.534).
conclusionsBy pooling together data from 5 RCTs and 7 nRCTs, we are able to provide evidence of safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery. Waiting for further randomized clinical trials, our results are encouraging to introduce laparoscopic rectal resection in daily practice.
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.