ArticleSisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni2018
Long-term and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer.
Article in Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe necessity of comparing oncologic results with the use of minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer has arisen. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the treatment approach in rectal cancer and to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery.
methodsPatients who underwent surgery for rectal carcinoma between January 2006 and January 2016 in our institution were evaluated. The results were compared between the two groups according to open or laparoscopic surgery. Clinical characteristics, preoperative and postoperative results, pathological examination results, and disease-free survival rates were compared after the surgical procedure.
resultsA total of 121 patients were included in the study. Of the patients, 50 underwent open, and 71 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median follow-up times were 56.75 months in the open surgery group and 55.2 months in the laparoscopic surgery group. Pathological examination revealed similar numbers of lymph nodes in both groups (p>0.05). The duration of hospital stay was statistically significantly lower in the open surgery group than in the laparoscopic group (p<0.05). The rates of disease-free survival were 74% in the open surgery group and 82.5% in the laparoscopic group, and no statistically significant difference was found (p>0.05).
conclusionThere was no significant difference in complication and recurrence between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer in our study. The duration of hospital stay of patients was statistically significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open surgery group. Laparoscopic or open surgical options could be preferred according to the clinical suitability of the patient, experience of the surgeon, and resources of the center in rectal cancer treatment.
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.