ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2021
[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the colon and rectum].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of laparoscopic versus open surgery on humoral immunity in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Single-Incision vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: An Update of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- [Transition phase to robot-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a comparative consecutive cohort study].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- [Robotic rectal surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Influence of Laparoscopic Surgery on Cellular Immunity in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2023Review
- [Robot-assisted rectal resections-Scoping review for level 1a evidence and retrospective analysis of in-clinic data].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic left colectomy for radical treatment of colon cancer: a retrospective analysis in a consecutive series of 211 patients.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Influence of type II diabetes mellitus on postoperative complications following colorectal cancer surgery.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An essential component of the treatment of colorectal cancer is a resection of the tumor-bearing segment of the bowels. After the development of minimally invasive procedures the feasibility and safety in oncological, colorectal surgery was questioned. The broad study situation for colon cancer over the last years showed predominantly consistent benefits during the perioperative phase and non-inferiority concerning long-term oncological outcomes. The implementation of laparoscopic rectal resection was more hesitant due to the complexity of the procedure and insufficient study data; however, overall the short-term benefits seem to be maintained and laparoscopic rectal resection is thought to be noninferior to open resection in the long run even though findings on the quality of the resected specimen are heterogeneous. Accordingly, most guidelines now include a recommendation of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. The limitation with respect to an achievable oncological equivalency of resection takes account of the complexity and the requirements of the intervention only in the setting of rational selection of patients and sufficient experience of the surgeon.
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.