ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Mid-term oncological outcomes after complete versus conventional mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.
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 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review, meta-analysis and GRADE assessment of the evidence on complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer with SAGES and ESCP participation.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Colon cancer: the 2023 Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and treatment.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Guideline
- Effect of complete mesocolic excision (cme) on long-term survival after right colectomy for cancer: multivariate meta-analysis and restricted mean survival time estimation.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Complete mesocolic excision for right hemicolectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Pooled it
- Long-Term Oncological Outcomes After Complete Mesocolic Excision Versus Standard Resection for Right-Sided Colon Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Article
- Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted and total laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Complete mesocolic excision versus D2 lymphadenectomy in right hemicolectomy: a meta-analysis of propensity score matched studies and randomized controlled trials.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for left-sided colon cancer: a multicentre study with propensity score matching analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for left-sided colon cancer: a multicentre study with propensity score matching analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- Should Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision Be Offered to Elderly Patients to Treat Right-Sided Colon Cancer?Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe correct extent of mesocolic dissection for right-sided colon cancer (RCC) is still under debate. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) has not gained wide diffusion, mainly due to its technical complexity and unclear oncological superiority. This study aims to evaluate oncological outcomes of CME compared with non-complete mesocolic excision (NCME) during resection for I-III stage RCC.
methodProspectively collected data of patients who underwent surgery between 2010 and 2018 were retrospectively analysed. 1:1 Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics of CME and NCME patients. The primary endpoint of the study was local recurrence-free survival (LRFS). The two groups were also compared in terms of short-term outcomes, distant recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival.
resultsOf the 444 patients included in the study, 292 were correctly matched after PSM, 146 in each group. The median follow-up was 45 months (IQR 33-63). Conversion rate, complications, and 90-day mortality were comparable in both groups. The median number of lymph nodes harvested was higher in CME patients (23 vs 19, p = 0.034). 3-year LRFS rates for CME patients was 100% and 95.6% for NCME (log-rank p = 0.028). At 3 years, there were no differences between the groups in terms of overall survival, distant recurrence-free survival, and disease-free survival.
conclusionOur PSM cohort study shows that CME is safe, provides a higher number of lymph nodes harvested, and is associated with better local recurrence-free survival.
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.