ArticleScientific reports2021
Differences in effectiveness and use of laparoscopic surgery in locally advanced colon cancer patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Outcomes following open versus laparoscopic multi-visceral resection for locally advanced colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Laparoscopic surgery should be a viable option for T4 colon cancer: evidence from a propensity score matching analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Observational
- Molecular Basis, Diagnostic Approaches, and Therapeutic Strategies in Colorectal Cancer-Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Article
- Maximizing Readmission Reduction in Colon Cancer Patients.The Journal of surgical research · 2024Article
- Retrospective analysis of surgical and oncological results of laparoscopic surgeries performed by residents of coloproctology.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2023Article
- Multiple interventional embolizations for hemostasis in hemorrhage following advanced colorectal cancer treatment: a case report.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients with locally advanced colon cancer have worse outcomes. Guidelines of various organizations are conflicting about the use of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) in locally advanced colon cancer. We determined whether patient outcomes of LC and open colectomy (OC) for locally advanced (T4) colon cancer are comparable in all colon cancer patients, T4a versus T4b patients, obese versus non-obese patients, and tumors located in the ascending, descending, and transverse colon. We used data from the 2013-2015 American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Patients were diagnosed with nonmetastatic pT4 colon cancer, with or without obstruction, and underwent LC (n = 563) or OC (n = 807). We used a composite outcome score (mortality, readmission, re-operation, wound infection, bleeding transfusion, and prolonged postoperative ileus); length of stay; and length of operation. Patients undergoing LC exhibited a composite outcome score that was 9.5% lower (95% CI - 15.4; - 3.5) versus those undergoing OC. LC patients experienced a 11.3% reduction in postoperative ileus (95% CI - 16.0; - 6.5) and an average of 2 days shorter length of stay (95% CI - 2.9; - 1.0). Patients undergoing LC were in the operating room an average of 13.5 min longer (95% CI 1.5; 25.6). We found no evidence for treatment heterogeneity across subgroups (p > 0.05). Patients with locally advanced colon cancer who receive LC had better overall outcomes and shorter lengths of stay compared with OC patients. LC was equally effective in obese/nonobese patients, in T4a/T4b patients, and regardless of the location of the tumor.
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.