Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32472404›Full record

SynthesisUpdates in surgery2020

Laparoscopic versus open complete mesocolic excision: a systematic review by updated meta-analysis.

Paschalis Gavriilidis, R Justin Davies, Antonio Biondi, James Wheeler, Mario Testini, Giulio Carcano, Salomone Di Saverio

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Paschalis GavriilidisDepartment of General and Colorectal Surgery, York Teaching Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Scarborough, YO12 6QL, UK.
R Justin DaviesCambridge Colorectal Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Antonio BiondiDepartment of Surgery, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
James WheelerCambridge Colorectal Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Mario TestiniDepartment of Surgery, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Giulio CarcanoDepartment of Surgery, University of Insubria, Insubria, Italy.
Salomone Di SaverioCambridge Colorectal Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. salomone.dsaverio@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5685-5022
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · ITUniversity of Catania · ITUniversity of Insubria · ITYork Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent evidence has proven the non-inferiority of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (LCME) to open complete mesocolic excision (OCME) with regard to feasibility and oncological safety. However, the differences in survival benefits between the 2 procedures have not been assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether or not one procedure was superior to the other using updated meta-analysis. A systematic search for relevant literature was performed in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library and Google scholar databases. This meta-analysis included retrospective studies and one randomised controlled trial comparing LCME to OSCME. LCME to OCME was evaluated using updated meta-analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodologic quality of the studies. Fixed- and random-effects models were used, and survival outcomes were assessed using the inverse variance hazard ratio (HR) method. Operative time was significantly shorter in the OCME cohort than in the LCME cohort. Blood loss, wound infections, time to flatus, time to oral feeding, and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the LCME cohort than in the OCME cohort. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survivals were better in the LCME cohort than in the OCME cohort ([HR = 0.37 (0.22, 0.65); p = 0.004], [HR = 0.48 (0.31, 0.74); p = 0.008], and [HR = 0.64 (0.45, 0.93); p = 0.02], respectively). No difference in the 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the 2 procedures was observed ([HR = 0.68 (0.44, 1.03); p = 0.07]). In contrast, the LCME cohort had better 3- and 5-year DFS rates than those of the OCME cohort ([HR = 0.63 (0.42, 0.97), p = 0.03] and [HR = 0.68 (0.56, 0.83), p = 0.001], respectively). The results of the present study must be interpreted cautiously because the included studies were retrospective from single centres. Therefore, selection, institutional and national bias may have influenced the results. LCME is associated with the faster postoperative recovery and some better potential survival benefits than OCME.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsEndoscopy, GastrointestinalFeasibility StudiesHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMesocolonOperative TimeSafetySurvival RateTreatment OutcomeCMEColon cancerColorectal cancerColorectal surgeryLaparoscopic CMELaparoscopic colectomyMeta-analysisMIS colorectalOncological outcomesOpen CMEOpen colectomy

Identifiers

PMID32472404
OpenAlexW3029908627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.