ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Transperineal minimally invasive abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: standardized technique and clinical outcomes.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early Complication Differences Between Laparoscopic and Open Abdominoperineal Resection.Cureus · 2025Article
- Efficacy and long-term outcomes of abdominoperineal resection using transperineal total mesorectal excision approach for rectal cancer.Surgery today · 2025Article
- Transperineal minimally invasive surgery during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer could improve short-term outcomes: A single-institution retrospective cohort study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- Feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for low rectal cancer combined with transanal total mesorectal excision.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Surgical Treatment of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: Updates.Annals of coloproctology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the increasing utilization of transanal total mesorectal excision as a promising approach for low rectal cancer, the feasibility and safety of transperineal minimally invasive abdominoperineal resection (tp-APR) remain unclear.
methodsIn total, 25 patients who underwent tp-APR between April 2017 and May 2020 (tp-APR group) and 27 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic APR between May 2009 and September 2016 (lap-APR group) for low rectal cancer were enrolled in this retrospective study. Clinical outcomes were compared between the groups before and after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the incidence of the overall postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo grade II or above. Standardized technique of tp-APR was also demonstrated.
resultsOn comparison, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and overall postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo grade II or above were significantly less in the tp-APR group both before and after propensity score matching. The rates of urinary disturbance and perineal wound infection were significantly less in the tp-APR group after matching. Further, postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the tp-APR group both before and after matching. However, pathological outcomes did not differ between the groups before and after matching. There has been no local recurrence in the tp-APR group with a median follow-up period of 18 months.
conclusionStandardized tp-APR for low rectal cancer is feasible and seems superior to conventional laparoscopic APR in terms of short-term outcomes. Further larger-scale studies with a longer follow-up period are required to evaluate oncological outcomes.
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.