ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2022
Spotlight on laparoscopy in the surgical resection of locally advanced rectal cancer: multicenter propensity score match study.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2022. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex Disparities in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An In-Depth Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes.The world journal of men's health · 2024Review
- Performance reporting design in artificial intelligence studies using image-based TNM staging and prognostic parameters in rectal cancer: a systematic review.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Review
- Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer.Ewha medical journal · 2023Review
- How Can We Improve the Tumor Response to Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer?Ewha medical journal · 2023Review
- Robotic surgery for locally advanced T4 rectal cancer: feasibility and oncological quality.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Applications of propensity score matching: a case series of articles published in Annals of Coloproctology.Annals of coloproctology · 2022Review
- Advances in surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer.Annals of coloproctology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study was aimed to assess the feasibility of laparoscopic rectal surgery, comparing quality of surgical specimen, morbidity, and mortality.
methodsProspectively acquired data from consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, at 2 minimally invasive colorectal units, operated by the same team was included. Locally advanced rectal tumors were identified as T3B or T4 with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans. All the patients were operated on by the same team. The 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to create a perfect match in terms of tumor height.
resultsTotal of 418 laparoscopic resections were performed, out of which 109 patients had locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and were propensity score matched with non-LARC (NLARC) patients. Median operation time was higher for the LARC group (270 minutes vs. 250 minutes, P=0.011). However, conversion to open surgery was done in 5 vs. 2 patients (P=0.445), reoperation in 8 vs. 7 (P=0.789), clinical anastomotic leak was found in 3 vs. 2 (P=0.670), and 30-day mortality rates was 2 vs. 1 (P>0.999) between LARC and NLARC, respectively. Readmission rate was higher in the NLARC group (33 patients vs. 19 patients, P=0.026), due to stoma-related issues. There was no statistically significant difference in the R0 resection between the 2 groups (99 patients in LARC vs. 104 patients in NLARC, P=0.284).
conclusionThis study demonstrates that standardized approach to laparoscopy is safe and feasible in LARC. Comparable postoperative short-term clinical and pathological outcomes were seen between LARC and NLARC groups.
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.