ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021
Effects of needlescopic surgery on postoperative pain in intersphincteric or abdominoperineal resection.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLaparoscopic surgery allows minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer, and needlescopic surgery (NS) offers even more minimally invasive operations beyond the scope of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CS). The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes of NS for intersphincteric resection (ISR) or abdominoperineal resection (APR) to treat anal or rectal cancer without an abdominal incision for specimen extraction and to measure abdominal wound pain compared to CS.
methodsBetween September 2014 and December 2016, a total of 134 patients underwent laparoscopic ISR or APR. Of these, 26 patients underwent NS, and 108 patients underwent CS. Postoperative abdominal wound pain was estimated using the numerical rating scale. Short-term outcomes were compared between NS and CS.
resultsNo conversion to CS or open surgery was required. Median operation time was significantly shorter with NS (295 min) than with CS (331.5 min; p = 0.020). Median estimated blood loss was significantly lower with NS (30 ml) than with CS (50 ml; p = 0.011). Postoperative pain score on postoperative day (POD)5 was significantly lower with NS than with CS (p = 0.025), and frequencies of analgesic use were significantly lower with NS than with CS on POD0, POD2, and POD3 (p = 0.032, p = 0.017, p = 0.045, respectively). The postoperative complications occurred at similar frequencies between groups (p = 0.655).
conclusionNS for ISR or APR offers comparable short-term outcomes to CS, with better pain outcomes.
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.