ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2023
Laparoscopic posterior pelvic exenteration is safe and feasible for locally advanced primary rectal cancer in female patients: a comparative study from China PelvEx collaborative.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- R0 Resection Rates in Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pelvic Exenteration for Colorectal Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched cohort study.Techniques in coloproctology · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposePosterior pelvic exenteration (PPE) for locally advanced rectal cancer is a technical and challenging procedure. The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic PPE remain to be determined. This study aims to compare short-term and survival outcomes of laparoscopic PPE (LPPE) with open PPE (OPPE) in female patients.
methodFrom January 2015 to December 2020, data from 105 female patients who underwent PPE at three institutions were retrospectively analyzed. The short-term and oncological outcomes between LPPE and OPPE were compared.
resultsA total of 54 cases with LPPE and 51 cases with OPPE were enrolled. The operative time (240 vs. 295 min, p = 0.009), blood loss (100 vs. 300 ml, p < 0.001), surgical site infection (SSI) rate (20.4% vs. 58.8%, p = 0.003), urinary retention rate (3.7% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.020), and postoperative hospital stay (10 vs. 13 days, p = 0.009) were significantly lower in the LPPE group. The two groups showed no significant differences in the local recurrence rate (p = 0.296), 3-year overall survival (p = 0.129), or 3-year disease-free survival (p = 0.082). A higher CEA level (HR 1.02, p = 0.002), poor tumor differentiation (HR 3.05, p = 0.004), and (y)pT4b stage (HR 2.35, p = 0.035) were independent risk factors for disease-free survival.
conclusionLPPE is safe and feasible for locally advanced rectal cancers and shows lower operative time and blood loss, fewer SSI complications, and better preservation of bladder function without compromising oncological outcomes.
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.