Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30414613›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2018

Systematic review of single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer.

Xin Liu, Ji-Bin Li, Gang Shi, Rui Guo, Rui Zhang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of clinical and pathological outcomes.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Xin LiuDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, No 44 Xiaoheyan Road, Dadong District, Shenyang, 110042, Liaoning Province, People's Republic of China.
Ji-Bin LiDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, No 44 Xiaoheyan Road, Dadong District, Shenyang, 110042, Liaoning Province, People's Republic of China.
Gang ShiDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, No 44 Xiaoheyan Road, Dadong District, Shenyang, 110042, Liaoning Province, People's Republic of China.
Rui GuoDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, No 44 Xiaoheyan Road, Dadong District, Shenyang, 110042, Liaoning Province, People's Republic of China.
Rui ZhangDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, No 44 Xiaoheyan Road, Dadong District, Shenyang, 110042, Liaoning Province, People's Republic of China. zhangrui612006@sina.com.

Funding

the National Natural Science Foundation of China 81672427
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore whether single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has the better short-term clinical and pathological outcomes than conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer.

methodsA literature investigation of MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biological Medicine (CBM), and Wanfang databases for relevant researches was performed. Fixed effects and random effects models were used to calculate the corresponding outcomes. Standardized mean difference and risk ratio were calculated for continuous and dichotomous variables separately.

resultsNine clinical controlled trials were composed of two randomized clinical trials and seven non-randomized clinical trials with a total of 829 patients. Two hundred ninety-nine (36.1%) patients underwent SILS, and 530 (63.9%) patients underwent CLS. The meta-analysis showed that SILS had more lymph node resection (SMD - 0.25, 95% CI - 0.50 to - 0.002) and less defecation time (SMD - 0.46, 95% CI - 0.75 to - 0.17), exhaust time (SMD - 0.46, 95% CI - 0.75 to - 0.18), and hospital stay (SMD - 0.30, 95% CI - 0.45 to - 0.15 than CLS. SILS was also accompanied with shorter incision length (SMD - 2.46, 95% CI - 4.02 to - 0.90), less pain score (SMD - 0.56, 95% CI - 0.91 to - 0.21), and lower complication rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.91). Blood loss, operative time, distal margin, conversion rate, anastomotic fistula, readmission, local recurrence, and distant metastasis showed no statistical differences in two groups. In all subgroup analysis, SILS also had advantages of incision length, operative time, defecation time, exhaust time, and hospitalization time than CLS.

conclusionSILS could be a more safe and reliable surgical technique than CLS for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer. However, further high-quality studies between these two techniques need to be further developed.

Indexed as

Colon, SigmoidControlled Clinical Trials as TopicHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRectal NeoplasmsRectumSigmoid NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic surgeryMeta-analysisSigmoid colon and rectal cancerSingle-incision

Identifiers

PMID30414613
PMCPMC6230377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.