ArticleCureus2022
Comparison of Short-Term Results of Laparoscopic and Open Surgeries for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center Experience.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting moderate-to-severe complications following primary tumor resection in metastatic colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Effect of postoperative complications on 5-year survival following laparoscopic surgery for resectable colorectal cancer: a retrospective study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Article
- Short-Term Outcomes of First 100 Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgeries at a Newly Developed Surgical Setup at Peshawar.Cureus · 2024Article
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
objectiveAlthough laparoscopic colon cancer surgeries have increased in recent years, their oncological competence is questioned. In our study, we aimed to evaluate oncological competence by comparing laparoscopic and open surgery.
methodThe study was planned retrospectively. A total of 94 patients were included in the study, 42 of whom underwent laparoscopy, and 52 patients underwent open surgery. Both groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, staging, number of benign/malignant lymph nodes, histological findings, and complications.
resultThe final pathology report of all patients was adenocarcinoma. The median number of dissected lymph nodes was 20.9 in the open group (8-34) and 19.46 in the laparoscopy group (7-31) (p = 0.639). The median number of dissected malignant lymph nodes was 1 (0-13) in the open surgery group and 3.1 (0-8) in the laparoscopy group (p = 0.216). The laparoscopy group exhibited a longer operation time (281.2 ± 54.2 and 221.0 ± 51.5 min, respectively; p = 0.036) than the open surgery group, but a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) discharge, quicker initiation oral feeding, and shorter length of hospital stay (4.0 ± 0.9 vs 5.7 ± 2.0 days, respectively; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Laparoscopic surgery elicits many benefits such as less wound infection, lower requirement for blood transfusion, shorter hospitalization, quicker initiation of oral feeding, and mobilization. Our study has shown that laparoscopic surgery provides quite adequate lymph node dissection when compared to oncological surgery, which is viewed with suspicion in the light of these benefits of laparoscopy.
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.