Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34129088›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

Laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision versus conventional resection for right-sided colon cancer: a propensity score matching analysis of short-term outcomes.

Carmelo Magistro, Camillo Leonardo Bertoglio, Alessandro Giani, Michele Mazzola, Carolina Rubicondo, Marianna Maspero, Pietro Carnevali, Matteo Origi, Giovanni Ferrari

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carmelo MagistroDivision of Minimally-Invasive Surgical Oncology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore, 3, 20162, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0547-8153
Camillo Leonardo BertoglioDivision of Minimally-Invasive Surgical Oncology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore, 3, 20162, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5925-983X
Alessandro GianiDivision of Minimally-Invasive Surgical Oncology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore, 3, 20162, Milan, Italy. a.giani3@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0718-2321
Michele MazzolaDivision of Minimally-Invasive Surgical Oncology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore, 3, 20162, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3546-197X
Carolina RubicondoDivision of Minimally-Invasive Surgical Oncology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore, 3, 20162, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2002-4793
Marianna MasperoDivision of Minimally-Invasive Surgical Oncology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore, 3, 20162, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7589-4489
Pietro CarnevaliDivision of Minimally-Invasive Surgical Oncology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore, 3, 20162, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4607-4585
Matteo OrigiDivision of Minimally-Invasive Surgical Oncology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore, 3, 20162, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4191-3378
Giovanni FerrariDivision of Minimally-Invasive Surgical Oncology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore, 3, 20162, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5405-9046
Ospedale Maggiore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComplete mesocolic excision (CME) for right-sided colon cancer (RCC) is a demanding operation, especially when performed laparoscopically. The potential impact of CME in increasing postoperative complications is still unclear. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic CME compared with laparoscopic non-complete mesocolic excision (NCME) during colectomy for RCC.

methodsData from a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent laparoscopic right and extended right colectomy at our institution between January 2008 and February 2020 were retrieved and analyzed. Short-term outcomes of patients undergoing CME and NCME were compared. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics between groups.

resultsA total of 663 consecutive patients underwent resection of RCC in the study period. Among these, 500 met the inclusion criteria and after PSM a total of 372 patients were correctly matched, 186 in each group. A similar rate of overall postoperative complications was found between the CME and NCME groups (21.5% and 18.3%, p = 0.436). No difference was found in terms of conversion rate, severe complications, reoperations, readmissions, and mortality. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the CME group (22 versus 19, p = 0.003), with a lower rate of inadequate sampling (7.0% and 15.1%, p = 0.013).

conclusionLaparoscopic CME for RCC is technically feasible and safe. It does not seem to be associated with a higher rate of complications or mortality compared with the "traditional" approach, but it allows better nodal sampling.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellColonic NeoplasmsKidney NeoplasmsLaparoscopyMesocolonColectomyHumansLymph Node ExcisionPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreTreatment OutcomeCancerCMEColectomyLaparoscopyRight

Identifiers

PMID34129088
OpenAlexW3166110773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.