ArticleJournal of the anus, rectum and colon2017
Needlescopic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer ~a comparative study~.
Article in Journal of the anus, rectum and colon, 2017. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A soft robotic, modular laparoscopic grasper for atraumatic retraction of the small intestine.Device · 2024Article
- Effects of needlescopic surgery on postoperative pain in intersphincteric or abdominoperineal resection.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study set out to determine whether Needlescopic surgery (NS) produces comparable surgical outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to conventional multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPS).
methodsWe used the five-port method with a 3.5 cm umbilical incision for extraction and reconstruction during MPS for CRC. One or two 5 mm ports were exchanged for needle forceps and all surgical procedures were as for previous MPS since July 2012. We investigated the short-term outcomes of 138 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection of CRC by NS (July 2012-August 2014) and 130 consecutive patients with CRC treated with MPS during a previous period (January 2010-June 2012).
resultsOperative time in the NS group was comparable to that of MPS (p=0.467); the NS group had significantly less estimated blood loss (p=0.002) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (p<0.001). The mean number of dissected lymph nodes was 27 in both groups (p=0.730). No mortality occurred in either group, and similar morbidity rates were observed (p=0.454).
conclusionsNS using Endo Relief needle forceps is a safe and feasible option compared to conventional MPS for CRC.
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.