SynthesisMedicine2018
Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials evaluating functional recovery, complication risk, and oncologic quality.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Inferior mesenteric artery ligation level in rectal cancer surgery: still no answer-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus Open Transverse-Incision Approach for Right Hemicolectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Fast-track surgery nursing intervention in CRC patients with laparotomy and laparoscopic surgery.Medicine · 2022Trial
- Preoperative sarcopenia negatively impacts short- and long-term outcomes of rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study on surgical outcomes and long-term survival.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Analysis of 10 years of open, laparoscopic, and robotic rectal surgeries in the community setting.Surgery open science · 2023Article
- Observational
- Creation of a rectal cancer registry in Italy by the Advanced International Mini-Invasive Surgery (AIMS) academy clinical research network.F1000Research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS) versus open surgery (OS) for rectal cancer.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, were searched for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to June 2017. Operation related index, postoperative complication, and long-term survival rate and disease-free survival rate were evaluated by meta-analytical techniques.
resultNine RCTs enrolling 4126 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. Compared to OS, LS had similar positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) and number of lymph nodes extracted (LNE) as well as long term 5 years survival rate and disease-free survival rate, but of which the risk tendency was higher in LS group. The short-term outcomes of major and total postoperative complication were lower in LS group.
conclusionsLS for rectal cancer was as safe and effective as OS in terms of long-term outcomes, but with lower postoperative complication.
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.