ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2021
Securing the surgical field for mobilization of right-sided colon cancer using the duodenum-first multidirectional approach in laparoscopic surgery.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Anatomical dissection approaches in right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision: characteristics of surgical outcomes from a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparing cranial-caudal-medial and medial-lateral approaches for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of the duodenum-first multidirectional approach (DMA) in laparoscopic right colectomy with those of the conventional medial approach to assess its safety and feasibility.
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled 120 patients who had laparoscopic surgery for right-sided colon cancer in our institution between April 2013 and December 2019. Fifty-four patients underwent colectomy using the multidirectional approach; among these, 20 underwent the DMA and 34 underwent the caudal-first multidirectional approach (CMA). Sixty-six patients underwent the conventional medial approach. Complications within 30 days of surgery were compared between the groups.
resultsThere were 54 patients in the multidirectional group [29 females, median age 72 years (range 36-91 years)] and 66 in the medial group [42 females, median age 72 years (range 41-91 years)]. Total operative time was significantly shorter in multidirectional approach patients than conventional medial approach patients (208 min vs. 271 min; p = 0.01) and significantly shorter in patients who underwent the DMA compared to the CMA (201 min vs. 269 min; p < 0.001). Operative time for the mobilization procedure was also significantly shorter in patients who underwent the DMA (131 min vs. 181 min; p < 0.001). Blood loss and incidence of postoperative complications did not differ. In 77 patients with advanced T3/T4 tumors, the DMA, CMA, and conventional medial approach were performed in 13, 21, and 43 patients, respectively. Total operative time and operative time of the mobilization procedure were significantly shorter in patients undergoing DMA. Blood loss and incidence of postoperative complications did not differ. R0 resection was achieved in all patients with advanced tumors.
conclusionsThe DMA in laparoscopic right colectomy is safe and feasible and can achieve R0 resection with a shorter operative time than the conventional medial approach, even in patients with advanced tumors.
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.