ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2021
Comparison of Short-term Results after Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision and Standard Colectomy for Right-Sided Colon Cancer: Analysis of a Western Center Cohort.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive complete mesocolic excision versus conventional right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- CME right colectomy with D3 lymphadenectomy for colon cancer through a bottom-to-up approach using CMR versius robotic system: an IDEAL stage 1 report.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- Uptake of robot-assisted colon cancer surgery in the Netherlands.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Article
- Influence of colonic mesenteric area on the number of lymph node retrieval for colon cancer: a prospective cohort study.Annals of coloproctology · 2023Article
- Multidisciplinary Treatment Strategy for Early Colon Cancer: A Review-An English Version.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLaparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) right colectomy is a technically demanding procedure infrequently employed in Western centers. This retrospective cohort study aims to analyze the safety of laparoscopic CME colectomy compared to standard colectomy for right-sided colon cancer in a Western series.
methodsProspectively collected data from 60 patients who underwent laparoscopic CME right colectomy were compared to the ones of 55 patients who underwent laparoscopic standard right colectomy.
resultsNo differences in clinical characteristics were observed between the CME and standard right colectomy groups. No differences were demonstrated in terms of blood loss (P = 0.060), intraoperative complications (P = 1), conversion rate (P = 0.102), and operative time (P = 0.473). No deaths were observed in either group, while complication rate was 40.0% in the CME and 49.1% in the standard group (P = 0.353). Severe complications occurred in 10.0% vs. 9.1% (P = 0.842), redo surgery in 5.0% vs. 7.3% (P = 0.708), and unplanned readmission in 5.0% vs. 5.5% (P = 1) after CME and standard colectomy, respectively. A significant difference in favor of CME was observed in the total length of specimen (P < 0.001), proximal (P = 0.018), and distal margins (P = 0.037). The number of lymph nodes harvested was significantly higher in the CME group (27 vs. 22, P = 0.037).
conclusionIn Western series, where patients have less favorable clinical characteristics, laparoscopic CME allows to obtain better quality surgical specimens and comparable short-term outcomes compared to standard right colectomy.
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.