Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31139888›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2019

Hybrid minimally invasive/open approach versus total minimally invasive approach for rectal cancer resection: short- and long-term results.

Simona Deidda, Jacopo Crippa, Emilie Duchalais, Scott R Kelley, Kellie L Mathis, Eric J Dozois, David W Larson

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Simona DeiddaDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Jacopo CrippaDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Emilie DuchalaisDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Scott R KelleyDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Kellie L MathisDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Eric J DozoisDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
David W LarsonDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. larson.david2@mayo.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo reduce the technical challenges of a totally minimally invasive approach (TMA) and to decrease the morbidity associated with open surgery, a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach (HMOA) has been introduced as a surgical technique for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative results and long-term oncologic outcomes between hybrid minimally invasive/open approach and totally minimally invasive approach in patients who underwent rectal resection for cancer.

methodsAll patients with rectal cancer undergoing a totally minimally invasive approach or hybrid minimally invasive/open approach proctectomy between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected from a prospectively maintained institutional database.

resultsAmong 283 patients, 138 (48.8%) underwent a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach and 145 (51.2%) a totally minimally invasive approach. Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups except for distance from the anal verge, which was lower in totally minimally invasive approach group (50.7% vs 29%; p = 0.0008). Length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer in the hybrid minimally invasive/open approach group (6.4 vs 4.3; p = < 0.0001). The median follow-up was 29.6 (14-40.6) months. Overall survival and disease-free survival were not significantly different between groups.

conclusionsCompared with a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach, a totally minimally invasive approach has a shorter length of stay and may improve short-term outcomes in patients undergoing proctectomy for cancer.

Indexed as

Minimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisRectal NeoplasmsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeHybrid minimally invasive/open approachLength of stayRectal cancerTotally minimally invasive approach

Identifiers

PMID31139888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.