ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2021
Can MRI pelvimetry predict the technical difficulty of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery?
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incremental Predictive Value of Conventional MRI Pelvimetry for Major Low Anterior Resection Syndrome After Rectal Cancer Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Interpretable machine learning model for predicting operative difficulty in robotic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Deep Learning-Based Prediction System for Surgical Difficulty in Rectal Cancer Patients Using MRI Pelvimetry.Yonsei medical journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Predictive Risk Factors for Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) in Rectal Cancer-An Observational Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Value of the newly developed pelvic dimension index/prostate volume ratio in predicting positive surgical margin in prostate cancer.International urology and nephrology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSelection of an open or minimally invasive approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) is generally based on surgeon preference and an intuitive assessment of patient characteristics but there consensus on criteria to predict surgical difficulty. Pelvimetry has been used to predict the difficult surgical pelvis, typically using only bony landmarks. This study aimed to assess the relationship between pelvic soft tissue measurements on preoperative MRI and surgical difficulty.
methodsPreoperative MRIs for patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal resection in the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT) were retrospectively reviewed by two blinded surgeons and pelvimetric variables measured. Pelvimetric variables were analyzed for predictors of successful resection of the rectal cancer, defined by clear circumferential and distal resection margins and completeness of TME.
resultsThere was no association between successful surgery and any measurement of distance, area, or ratio. However, the was a strong association between the primary outcome and the estimated total pelvic volume on adjusted logistic regression analysis (OR = 0.99, P = 0.01). For each cubic centimeter increase in the pelvic volume, there was a 1% decrease in the odds of successful laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Intuitive prediction of unsuccessful surgery was correct in 43% of cases, and correlation between surgeons was poor (ICC = 0.18).
conclusionsA surgeon's intuitive assessment of the difficult pelvis, based on visible MRI assessment, is not a reliable predictor of successful laparoscopic surgery. Further assessment of pelvic volume may provide an objective method of defining the difficult surgical pelvis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34338870What 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.