ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2019
Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer reveals comparable oncological outcome even in context of worse short-term results-long-term analysis of nearly 500 patients from two high-volume centers.
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. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- The use of single-stapling techniques reduces anastomotic complications in minimal-invasive rectal surgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic versus open surgical management in elderly patients with rectal cancer aged 70 and older.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
- Clinical efficacy of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy combined with Laparoscopic Surgery in patients with Middle and Low Rectal Cancer and its Effect on serum VEGF Levels and quality of life.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLarge randomized controlled trials have investigated the oncological value of the laparoscopic approach to colorectal cancer. Mainly, non-inferiority for the laparoscopic approach regarding long-term survival could be shown. Nevertheless, some recent trials revealed inferiority especially due to histopathological quality of specimen or location of the tumor in the rectum. The main objective of this study was to compare two historical patient collectives of specialized centers for either the laparoscopic or the open resection approach, regarding long-term survival and disease progression of rectal cancer according to tumor localization in a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis.
methodsA retrospective analysis, based on two prospectively maintained institutional colorectal cancer databases, was performed. The database of the reference center in Erlangen maintained almost exclusively open operations whereas the database in Lübeck maintained to a vast majority laparoscopic operations. To adjust risk profiles, a 1:1 propensity score matching was performed.
resultsSeven hundred fifty-five patients of both centers (Erlangen, n = 507, Lübeck n = 248) were included. Propensity score matching resulted in two equalized groups with 248 patients. Regarding the postoperative complications, advantages for the open approach were seen. Analyzing the survival data, no differences in disease-free as well as overall survival were shown. Also, no differences in the overall loco-regional recurrence and distant metastasis rate were detected.
conclusionIn centers with adequate expertise, open and laparoscopic procedures result in equivalent oncologic long-term outcomes. Advantages for the open resected group concerning short-term results and complications were detected, due to remarkably low rates of anastomotic leakage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31309324What 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.