ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2019
Standardised approach to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective multi-centre analysis.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can Surgical Approach and Postoperative Factors Impact Survival in Rectal Cancer? Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Insights.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Sphincter-preserving surgical techniques in low rectal cancer management: A systematic review of contemporary evidence.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Computed tomography-assessed presarcopenia and clinical outcomes after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.Annals of coloproctology · 2023Article
- Implementation of a standardized surgical technique in robot-assisted restorative rectal cancer resection: a single center cohort study.BMC surgery · 2022Article
- Spotlight on laparoscopy in the surgical resection of locally advanced rectal cancer: multicenter propensity score match study.Annals of coloproctology · 2022Article
- State of the art in robotic rectal surgery: marginal gains worth the pain?Updates in surgery · 2021Article
- Effects of needlescopic surgery on postoperative pain in intersphincteric or abdominoperineal resection.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Article
- Nomograms and risk score models for predicting survival in rectal cancer patients with neoadjuvant therapy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Results of laparoscopic resection in high-risk rectal cancer patients.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Article
- Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: The myth of reinventing the wheel.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
purposeTwo non-inferiority randomised control trials have questioned the utility of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer by failing to prove that pathological markers of high-quality surgery are equivalent to those achieved by open technique. We present short- and long-term post-operative outcomes from the largest single surgeon series of consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer. We describe the standardised laparoscopic technique developed by the principal surgeon, and the short-term outcomes from three surgeons who were trained in and subsequently adopted the same approach.
methodsProspectively acquired data from consecutive patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer by the principal surgeon at the minimally invasive colorectal unit in Portsmouth between 2006 and 2014 were analysed along with data acquired between 2010 and 2017 from surgeons at three further international centres. Endpoints were overall and disease-free survival at 5 years, and early post-operative clinical and pathological outcomes.
resultsTwo hundred sixty-three consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic TME surgery by the principal surgeon. At 5 years, overall survival was 82.9% (Dukes' A = 94.4%; B = 81.6%; C = 73.7%); disease-free survival was 84.0% (Dukes' A = 93.3%; B = 86.8%; C = 72.6%). Post-operative length of stay, lymph node harvest, mean operating time, rate of conversion, major morbidity and 30-day mortality were not significantly different between the principal surgeon and those he had trained when subsequently in independent practices.
conclusionLaparoscopic TME produces excellent long-term survival outcomes for patients with rectal cancer. A standardised approach has the potential to improve outcomes by setting benchmarks for surgical quality, and providing a step-by-step method for surgical training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31377857What 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.