ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2023
Redo laparoscopic colorectal resection: a retrospective analysis with propensity score matching.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term outcomes of open versus laparoscopic surgery in patients with metachronous colorectal cancer.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Usefulness of the one-step technique in functional end-to-end anastomosis for colonic surgery: results of a prospective multicentre cohort study from the Japanese KYCC group.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeReports of redo laparoscopic colorectal resection (Re-LCRR) are scarce. In order to evaluate the safety and short-term outcomes of Re-LCRR, we performed a matched case-control analysis of patients who underwent this procedure for colorectal cancer.
methodThis was a retrospective, monocentric study that included patients who underwent Re-LCRR for colorectal cancer between January 2011 and December 2019 at our institution. The patients were compared to a 2:1 matched sample. Matching was conducted based on age, sex, BMI, surgical procedure, and clinical stage.
resultTwenty-nine patients underwent Re-LCRR (RCRR group) and were compared to 58 patients selected by matching who underwent LCRR as primary resection (PCRR group). The median of age of the 29 patients of RCRR group was 75 (IQR 56-81) years and the RCRR group included 14 males. The median operative time of the RCRR group was 167 (IQR 126-232) minutes, and the median intraoperative blood loss was 5 (IQR 2-35) ml. In the RCRR group, there were no cases that required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term outcomes of the two groups did not differ to a statistical extent with respect to operative time (p = 0.415), intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.971), rate of conversion to laparotomy (p = 0.477), comorbidity (p = 0.215), and postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.809). No patients in either group experienced postoperative anastomotic leakage or required re-operation due to postoperative complications, and there was no procedure-related death. However, in terms of oncological factors, although there was no difference in the number of cases with a positive radical margin between the two groups (p = 1.000), the number of harvested lymph nodes in the RCRR group was significantly lower than that in the PCRR group (p = 0.015) and the RCRR group included 10 cases with less than 12 harvested lymph nodes.
conclusionRe-LCRR is associated with good short-term results and can be safely performed; however, the number of harvested lymph nodes is significantly reduced in comparison to primary resection cases, and further studies are needed to evaluate its long-term prognosis.
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.