ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery
Oncological adequacy of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection: An audit in Indian perspective.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Effect of Radiotherapy Combined with Capecitabine after Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer.Journal of oncology · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic resection for rectal cancer (LRR) has gained popularity because of better short-term outcomes and less post-operative morbidity. However, LRR is still not endorsed as a standard of care mainly due to concerns centred on oncological safety in comparison with open approach. Moreover, two recent randomised trials (Australian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum [ALaCaRT] and the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group [ACOSOG] Z6051) have failed to prove that LRR is non-inferior to open resection. Studies on oncological adequacy of LRR in the Indian population in terms of quality of mesorectal excision are scarce. In this article, we aim to audit the oncological adequacy of LRR in our centre and thereby critically analyse the reliability of extrapolation of results of ALaCaRT and ACOSOG trials to the Indian population.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed the oncological adequacy of LRR in terms of completeness of total mesorectal excision (TME), distal and circumferential resection margin (CRM) status and nodal harvest in patients with rectal cancer who underwent LRR between January 2016 and June 2018 at our centre.
resultsOf 157 patients included in this study, a complete TME was achieved in 148 (94.26%) patients and nearly complete in 7 (4.46%) patients. A safe CRM (≥1 mm) was obtained in 151 (96.18%) patients. Distal margin results were negative in 155 (98.73%) patients. Average nodal harvest was 19.86 ± 9.28. Overall surgical success, calculated as a composite measure of negative distal margin and negative CRM and complete TME was 95.54%.
conclusionGood quality rectal cancer resection can be achieved by experienced laparoscopic surgeons without compromising oncological safety.
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.