ArticleANZ journal of surgery2022
Oncological results in rectal cancer patients with a subcentimetre distal margin after laparoscopic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Distal resection margins before and after fixation: a comparative analysis in rectal cancer surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Determining the optimal surgical margin using whole scene pathology and molecular surgical margin analysis in colorectal cancer radical surgery-a cross-sectional study.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Surgical effect and gastrointestinal functional recovery of laparoscopic-guided total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDistal resection margin (DRM) is closely associated with sphincter-preserving surgery and oncological safety for patients with mid-low rectal cancers. However, the optimal DRM has not been determined.
methodsData of 378 rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted sphincter-preserving surgery from 2009 to 2015 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into two groups based on DRM: ≤1 cm (n = 74) and >1 cm (n = 304). To minimize the differences between the two groups, propensity-score matching on baseline features was performed.
resultsBefore propensity-score matching, no significant differences in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) (92.8% versus 81.3%, P = 0.128) and 5-year overall survival (OS) (83.7% versus 82.2%, P = 0.892) were observed in patients with DRMs of ≤1 cm (n = 74) and >1 cm (n = 304), respectively. After propensity-score matching (1:1), there were also no significant differences in DFS (88.1% versus 78.2%, P = 0.162) and OS (84.5% versus 84.9%, P = 0.420) between the DRM of ≤1 cm group (n = 65) and >1 cm group (n = 65), respectively. A total of 44 patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In this cohort, the 5-year local recurrence (LR) rates (P = 0.118) and the 5-year DFS rates (P = 0.298) were not significantly different between the two groups. A total of 334 patients received surgery without neoadjuvant CRT. There were also no significant differences in the 5-year LR rates (P = 0.150) and 5-year DFS rates (P = 0.172) between the two groups.
conclusionsWhen aiming to achieve at least a 1-2 cm distal clinical resection margin, a histological resection margin of <1 cm on the DRM gave equivalent clinical outcomes to a DRM of >1 cm.
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.