ArticleCureus2020
Institutional Outcomes Should Be a Determinant in Decision to Perform Laparoscopic Proctectomies for Rectal Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose Minimally invasive rectal cancer (RC) resection has become common, despite recent high-profile trials failing to show non-inferiority to open proctectomy. We hypothesized that at a high-volume center, laparoscopic resection may have superior outcomes compared to those seen in ALaCaRT and ACOSOG Z6051. Methods Retrospective review of patients undergoing laparoscopic proctectomy from 2007 to 2015 for RC was performed at a high-volume center. Primary outcome was successful resection defined by negative circumferential resection margin (CRM) and distal margin (DM), and complete total mesorectal excision (TME). Results A total of 89 patients were included. Of 33 patients with TME grading, 31 (93.9%) had complete/near complete TME, and 29 (87.9%) had a "successful resection" compared with 81.7% in ACOSOG and 82% in ALaCART trials using same criteria. CRM was ≥1 mm in 87 (97.8%) of patients. Mean DM was 3.8 cm; 97.8% of patients had negative DM. Conclusion High-volume centers can achieve similar high quality RC outcomes to those demonstrated in recent trials. Institutional outcomes should determine optimal surgical technique.
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.