Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30656453›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2019

2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial.

N J Curtis, J A Conti, R Dalton, T A Rockall, A S Allison, J B Ockrim, I C Jourdan, J Torkington, S Phillips, J Allison and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Three-dimensionalIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 2DWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

N J CurtisDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, Level 10, Praed Street, London, UK. nathancurtis@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5655-6823
J A ContiDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Southwick Hill Road, Cosham, UK.
R DaltonDepartment of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, UK.
T A RockallColorectal Surgery, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Egerton Road, Guildford, UK.
A S AllisonDepartment of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, UK.
J B OckrimDepartment of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, UK.
I C JourdanColorectal Surgery, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Egerton Road, Guildford, UK.
J TorkingtonColorectal Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK.
S PhillipsColorectal Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK.
J AllisonDepartment of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, UK.
G B HannaDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, Level 10, Praed Street, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2897-0140
N K FrancisDepartment of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8498-9175
Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBRoyal Surrey County Hospital · GBUniversity Hospital of Wales · GBSouthampton General Hospital · GBSt Mary's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer has been questioned. 3D laparoscopic systems are suggested to aid optimal surgical performance but have not been evaluated in advanced procedures. We hypothesised that stereoscopic imaging could improve the performance of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME).

methodsA multicentre developmental randomised controlled trial comparing 2D and 3D laparoscopic TME was performed (ISRCTN59485808). Trial surgeons were colorectal consultants that had completed their TME proficiency curve and underwent stereoscopic visual testing. Patients requiring elective laparoscopic TME with curative intent were centrally randomised (1:1) to 2D or 3D using Karl Storz IMAGE1 S D3-Link™ and 10-mm TIPCAM®1S 3D passive polarising laparoscopic systems. Outcomes were enacted adverse events as assessed by the observational clinical human reliability analysis technique, intraoperative data, 30-day patient outcomes, histopathological specimen assessment and surgeon cognitive load.

results88 patients were included. There were no differences in patient or tumour demographics, surgeon stereopsis, case difficulty, cognitive load, operative time, blood loss or conversion between the trial arms. 1377 intraoperative adverse events were identified (median 18 per case, IQR 14-21, range 2-49) with no differences seen between the 2D and 3D arms (18 (95% CI 17-21) vs. 17 (95% CI 16-19), p = 0.437). 3D laparoscopy had non-significantly higher mesorectal fascial plane resections (94 vs. 77%, p = 0.059; OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.05-1.16)) but equal lymph node yield and circumferential margin distance and involvement. 30-day morbidity, anastomotic leak, re-operation, length of stay and readmission rates were equal between the 2D and 3D arms.

conclusionFeasibility of performing multicentre 3D laparoscopic multicentre trials of specialist performed complex procedures is shown. 3D imaging did not alter the number of intraoperative adverse events; however, a potential improvement in mesorectal specimen quality was observed and should form the focus of future 3D laparoscopic TME trials.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalAgedAnastomotic LeakFemaleHumansIntraoperative ComplicationsLaparoscopyLength of StayLymph Node ExcisionMaleRectal NeoplasmsRectumReoperation3DLaparoscopicRectal cancerThree-dimensionalTotal mesorectal excisionTrial

Identifiers

PMID30656453
PMCPMC6722156
OpenAlexW2910231762

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.