ReviewFrontiers in oncology2020
Laparoscopic Approach to Rectal Cancer-The New Standard?
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Achieving Quality Outcomes at reduced costs in Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Tertiary Centre's experience with 330 Robotic Rectal Cancer resections.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus transanal total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Advancements in Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Paradigm Shift.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Impact of depth of body cavity at the upper-right portion of the abdomen on open and laparoscopic liver resection of segment 7.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Single-docking robotic assisted proctectomy for rectal cancer below peritoneal reflection: a propensity score matching analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Impact of Age and Comorbidity on Multimodal Management and Survival from Colorectal Cancer: A Population-Based Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- LongTerm Outcomes of Three-Port Laparoscopic Right HemicolectomyFrontiers in 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery has revolutionized the way surgeons perform colorectal surgery, and new technologies continually upend the way surgeons view and operate within the deep pelvis. Among other benefits, it is associated with decreased lengths of stay, wound and surgical site infections, pain scores, and has an overall lower complication rate vs. open surgery (1). Recently, however, the role of minimally invasive surgery has been called into question in the effective and safe treatment of rectal cancer. This manuscript will outline the history of minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery, examine evidence detailing its safety (compared with alternatives), and discuss important aspects of use, most notably the considerable learning curve required to achieve proficiency, the extent of its current use, and potential pitfalls. The current evidence suggests minimally invasive surgery is a very safe way to treat rectal cancer when performed by experienced and specialty trained surgeons.
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.