ArticleJournal of the anus, rectum and colon2018
Short-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal neoplasms: An observational study.
Article in Journal of the anus, rectum and colon, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to avoid overtreatment of benign colorectal lesions: Rationale for an evidence-based management.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Minimally invasive treatments for early colorectal cancer: comparison of endoscopic resection and laparoscopic surgery.Korean journal of clinical oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWith endoscopic submucosal dissection and laparoscopic surgery, treatment for colorectal neoplasms has become minimally invasive. However, few studies have compared endoscopic submucosal dissection with laparoscopic surgery for colorectal neoplasms, excluding deeply invasive cancer on preoperative diagnosis.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the files of patients who had undergone endoscopic submucosal dissection or laparoscopic surgery for colorectal neoplasms between November 2005 and December 2015. We limited patients who were not suspected preoperatively to have aggressive submucosal invasion >1,000 μm.
resultsNinety-five patients underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection and 37 underwent laparoscopic surgery. Cases of endoscopic submucosal dissection tended to involve rectal neoplasms more often than colonic neoplasms, shorter operative times, and shorter lengths of hospital stay compared with laparoscopic surgery. The perforation rate during colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection in the early period (November 2005 to December 2010) and late period (January 2011 to December 2015) was 14.8% and 2.9%, respectively. In all cases of perforation during colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection, the ability to maneuver the endoscope was compromised. Though tumors were larger in patients who underwent rectal endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection, the perforation and postoperative bleeding rates with rectal endoscopic submucosal dissection were both 3.2%. The most common indication for laparoscopic surgery was difficulty performing endoscopic submucosal dissection. Serious complications were rare.
conclusionsFor colonic neoplasms, laparoscopic surgery should be considered when endoscopic submucosal dissection is technically difficult in the early period. For rectal neoplasms, endoscopic submucosal dissection is desirable even for those of large size.
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.