ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery
Laparoscopic versus conventional open surgery in T4 rectal cancer: A case-control study.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic surgery for locally advanced T4 rectal cancer: feasibility and oncological quality.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Robotic surgery for clinical T4 rectal cancer: short- and long-term outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic surgery (LAS) for T4 rectal cancer (RC) is still controversial. This study aims to compare LAS with conventional open surgery in patients with T4 RC. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients undergoing laparoscopic or open curative resection for T4 RC from January 2010 to September 2014 in our hospital were enrolled. Patients' clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes were collected and compared. All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0.
resultsA total of 125 patients (39 open, 86 LAS) were included in this study finally. The baseline information between the two groups were comparable except that LAS group had a more anterior resection (P = 0.012) and less combined resection (P = 0.003). The results demonstrated that patients in LAS group had less blood loss (P < 0.001), smaller incision length (P < 0.001), faster time to first soft diet (P = 0.010) and less incidence of post-operative complications, although it was not significantly different (P = 0.063). In addition, the operative time was also comparable (P = 0.140) and the conversion rate was low (2/86). The 3-year overall survival (OS) was 71.8%, 79.1% in open, LAS group respectively and the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 66.7%, 68.6% in open, laparoscopic group, respectively. The Kaplan curves demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the two groups in OS (P = 0.981) or DFS (P = 0.900).
conclusionsLAS is safe and feasible in selected patients with T4 RC. It can achieve a better perioperative outcomes, and the long-time survival is not inferior to open surgery. Prospective studies should be conducted in the future to reduce the selection bias.
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.