Observational studyInternational journal of colorectal disease2020
Laparoscopic versus open selective lateral pelvic lymph node dissection following total mesorectal excision for locally advanced low rectal cancer.
Observational study in International journal of colorectal disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Radical Resection of RectalContrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Pooled it
- Lateral pelvic lymphadenectomy for low rectal cancer: a META-analysis of recurrence rates.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Pooled it
- Review
- Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Locally-Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Cohort Study Comparing Perioperative Morbidity and Short-Term Oncological Outcomes.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Postoperative Morbidity and Factors Predicting the Development of Lymphoceles Following Lateral Pelvic Node Dissection for Rectal Cancer: A Cohort Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Long-term outcomes of indocyanine green fluorescence imaging-guided laparoscopic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for clinical stage II/III middle-lower rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched cohort study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- Primary tumor location impacts survival in colorectal cancer patients after primary resection: a population‑based propensity score matching cohort study.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
- Lateral lymph node dissection and urogenital function with and without neoadjuvant treatment.Translational cancer research · 2022Article
- Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open lateral lymph node dissection for locally advanced middle/lower rectal cancer using a propensity score-matched analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposesLateral pelvic lymph node (LPLN) dissection represents a technically challenging procedure with a high potential risk of surgical morbidity. The purpose of this study was to compare the technical feasibility, safety, and oncological efficacy of laparoscopic LPLN dissection (LPLD) following total mesorectal excision (TME) with open LPLD for locally advanced low rectal cancer (LALRC).
methodsBetween January 2010 and December 2016, consecutive patients with LALRC and swollen LPLNs who underwent laparoscopic or open TME with LPLD at our institution were enrolled in this retrospective observational study. Data regarding patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, and oncological outcomes were analyzed and compared.
resultsA total of 64 patients met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-four patients underwent open procedure, and 30 underwent laparoscopic procedure. The mean blood loss volume was significantly less in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (165 vs. 422 mL; P = 0.012). The mean operative time was not significantly different between the laparoscopic and the open groups (354 ± 91 vs. 315 ± 78 min; P = 0.522). The overall postoperative complication rates were 30.0% and 35.3% for the laparoscopic and open groups (P = 0.428), respectively. Postoperative urinary retention was significantly less in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (14.7 vs. 0%; P = 0.036).The duration of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (8.5 ± 3.8 vs. 13.6 ± 6.5 days; P = 0.025). The numbers of harvested lymph nodes and positive resection margin rates showed no significant differences. Pathological LPLN metastases were confirmed in 10 patients (29.4%) in the open group and 11 (36.7%) in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.537). The median follow-up duration was 41.5 months (range 3-98). The laparoscopic and open groups also showed a similar 3-year overall survival rate (88.2% vs. 85.3%; P = 0.577), relapse-free survival rate (73.3% vs. 67.6%; P = 0.889), and local recurrence rate (3.3 vs. 5.9%; P = 0.653).
conclusionsLaparoscopic TME with LPLD is technically feasible and safe in selected patients with LALRC and is associated with similar oncological outcomes as open approach.
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.