ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2022
Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in an elderly population with high comorbidity: a single centre experience.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of age on short-term outcomes and oncologic prognosis after radical surgery for colorectal cancer over 60.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Outcomes Following Colorectal Cancer Resection in Elderly Patients.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- The impact of patient position changes on advanced hemodynamic indices in laparoscopic and open major abdominal cancer surgeries: retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2025Observational
- Oncologic outcomes and associated factors of colon cancer patients aged 70 years and older.Annals of coloproctology · 2025Article
- Short-term efficacy of laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer and risk of unplanned reoperation after surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Evaluation and analysis of neurocognitive dysfunction in patients with colorectal cancer after radical resection: A retrospective study.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients with high comorbidity is a controversial subject. This retrospective analysis aims to compare two different age groups with respect to short and long term clinical and oncological outcomes.
methodsAll laparoscopic colorectal resections for cancer performed between February 2011 and October 2017 with curative or palliative intention were evaluated.
resultsAmong 128 completed resections, the rate of major complications, length of hospital stays, 30-day mortality, 2-year recurrence rate, and the survival after palliative surgery were comparable between group A (< 75 years; n = 76) and B (≥ 75 years; n = 52). Patients in group B showed an extraordinarily high proportion of ASA III stage (73.1% vs. A: 35.5%; p < 0.01) and, in this context, an increased rate of minor postoperative complications (17.3% vs. A: 6.6%; p < 0.05) and lower overall 2 and 5-year survival rates. Within the first 2 years, they died sooner in the event of recurrence (57.1% vs. A: 18.2%; p < 0.05), and their survival after rectal resection, especially for low rectal carcinoma, was significantly reduced (58.8% vs. A: 96.7%; p < 0.001).
conclusionLaparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer can be strongly advocated for elderly patients even in the face of high comorbidity. Whether very old patients with low rectal carcinoma also benefit from minimally invasive surgery or should undergo alternative therapies would need to be clarified primarily by examining the quality of life.
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.