Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35313437›Full record

ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery

Three-dimensional versus conventional two-dimensional laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: A 3-year follow-up study.

Yi-Wen Yang, Sheng-Chieh Huang, Shih-Ching Chang, Huann-Sheng Wang, Shung-Haur Yang, Wei-Shone Chen, Yuan-Tzu Lan, Chun-Chi Lin, Hung-Hsin Lin, Jeng-Kai Jiang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of minimal access surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Yi-Wen YangDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Sheng-Chieh HuangDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Shih-Ching ChangDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Huann-Sheng WangDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Shung-Haur YangDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Wei-Shone ChenDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Yuan-Tzu LanDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Chun-Chi LinDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Hung-Hsin LinDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Jeng-Kai JiangDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy was developed to overcome the drawbacks of two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy, namely lack of depth perception. However, the benefit of 3D laparoscopy in colorectal surgery is inconclusive. Here, we compare the 3-year follow-up outcomes of 3D and 2D laparoscopic colectomy. Patients and Methods: A total of 91 consecutive patients who underwent either 3D or 2D laparoscopy colectomy from October 2015 to November 2017 by a single surgical team for colon cancer were enrolled. Data were collected from a prospectively constructed database, including clinico-pathological features and operative parameters. The pathological results, recurrence, survival and systemic treatment were collected from the Taiwan Cancer Database. Results: There were 47 patients in the 3D group and 44 in the 2D group. There were no significant differences in characteristics of patients, operation data, pathological results, complications, operative time, blood loss or the number of lymph node harvested between the two groups. In addition, disease-free survival and overall survival were equal between the two groups. Conclusions: This is the first long-term result of a 3D laparoscopic colectomy. In our 3-year follow-up, there was no difference in long-term outcomes between 2D and 3D laparoscopy for colorectal surgery in an experienced centre.

Indexed as

Colectomycolonic neoplasmsimaginglaparoscopythree-dimensional

Identifiers

PMID35313437
PMCPMC8973498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.