ArticleKorean journal of clinical oncology2021
Comparison of oncologic outcome of abdominoperineal resection versus sphincter saving resection for low lying rectal cancer.
Article in Korean journal of clinical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating negative-pressure wound therapy after abdominoperineal resection: a systematic review of efficacy and technical variability.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Pooled it
- Long-term efficacy and short-term outcomes of intersphincteric resectionWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Outcomes of Distal Rectal Cancer Patients Who Did Not Qualify for Watch-and-Wait: Comparison of Intersphincteric Resection Versus Abdominoperineal Resection.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The present study compares the peri/postoperative and oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resections (APR) and sphincter saving resection (SSR) for low lying rectal cancer. Methods: Between January 2001 and December 2014, 176 patients who underwent SSR (n=67) and APR (n=109) for low rectal cancer, without stage IV, were retrieved from a retrospective database. Results: With a median follow-up of 66.5 months. The mean total number of harvested lymph nodes was 16.7 (SSR) versus 17.1 (APR) (P=0.801). The advanced T stage was higher in the APR group (82.6%) versus the SSR group (55.2%) (P=0.006). The positive rate of lymph nodes after surgery was significantly higher in the APR group (45.9%) versus SSR group (25.4%) (P<0.05). The 5-year overall survival rates for SSR and APR were 87.3% and 67.6%, respectively (P<0.005). The 5-year disease-free survival rate (DFS) was 83.6% (SSR) versus 65.5% (APR) (P=0.002). The recurrence rate was higher in the APR group (34.9%) versus the SSR group (14.9%) (P=0.004). Local recurrence rate was not different between the two groups. However, distant recurrence rate was significantly higher in the APR group (26.6% vs. 11.9%, P=0.023). In multivariate analysis, node positive (N0 vs. N1-2) was an independent prognostic factor for DFS (P<0.005). Conclusion: Based on the present data, SSR achieved better 5-year oncological outcome than APR. The positive lymph node ratio in the N stage after surgery was higher in the APR group and this seems to have an effect on the oncological outcomes of the APR group.
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.