Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33644837›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2021

A global systematic review and meta-analysis on laparoscopic vs open right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision.

Gabriele Anania, Alberto Arezzo, Richard Justin Davies, Francesco Marchetti, Shu Zhang, Salomone Di Saverio, Roberto Cirocchi, Annibale Donini

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05713903 (Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Colectomy for Right Colon Cancer, According to the Complete Mesocolic Excision), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05713903 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Colectomy for Right Colon Cancer, According to the Complete Mesocolic Excision (CME) Principles: a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorLarissa University HospitalRan2023 to 2028Enrolled114ConditionsColon CancerArmsLaparoscopic right colectomy, Open right colectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors.

Gabriele AnaniaDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Via Fossato di Mortara 70, 44121, Ferrara, Italy.
Alberto ArezzoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Richard Justin DaviesCambridge Colorectal Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Francesco MarchettiDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Via Fossato di Mortara 70, 44121, Ferrara, Italy. frances.marchetti@edu.unife.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8052-125X
Shu ZhangDepartment of Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Salomone Di SaverioDepartment of General Surgery, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Roberto CirocchiDepartment of General Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, PG, Italy.
Annibale DoniniDepartment of General Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, PG, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of right hemicolectomy with CME performed with laparoscopic and open surgery.

methodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, Google Scholar and the ClinicalTrials.gov register were searched. Primary outcome was the overall number of harvested lymph nodes. Secondary outcomes were short and long-term course variables. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios.

resultsTwenty-one studies were identified with 5038 patients enrolled. The difference in number of harvested lymph nodes was not statistically significant (MD 0.68, - 0.41-1.76, P = 0.22). The only RCT shows a significant advantage in favour of laparoscopy (MD 3.30, 95% CI - 0.20-6.40, P = 0.04). The analysis of CCTs showed an advantage in favour of the laparoscopic group, but the result was not statically significantly (MD - 0.55, 95% CI - 0.57-1.67, P = 0.33). The overall incidence of local recurrence was not different between the groups, while systemic recurrence at 5 years was lower in laparoscopic group. Laparoscopy showed better short-term outcomes including overall complications, lower estimated blood loss, lower wound infections and shorter hospital stay, despite a longer operative time. The rate of anastomotic and chyle leak was similar in the two groups.

conclusionsDespite the several limitations of this study, we found that the median number of lymph node harvested in the laparoscopic group is not different compared to open surgery. Laparoscopy was associated with a lower incidence of systemic recurrence.

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsLaparoscopyMesocolonChinaColectomyHumansLength of StayLymph Node ExcisionNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOperative TimeTreatment OutcomeCME colectomyLaparoscopic surgeryOpen surgeryRight hemicolectomy

Identifiers

PMID33644837
PMCPMC8280018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.