ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
Analysis of surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for locally advanced mid-transverse colon cancer.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The emperor has no clothes-the need for standardized anatomical segment definitions in the management of colon cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
- Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study compared the surgical outcomes between laparoscopic colectomy (LC) and open colectomy (OC) for mid-transverse colon cancer (MTC).
methodsThis multicenter retrospective study compared the short- and long-term surgical outcomes for patients with advanced MTC (T3 and T4 with or without nodal involvement) who underwent LC or OC between January 2008 and December 2019 using a propensity score-matched analysis.
resultsA total of 177 patients with advanced MTC were enrolled. After matching, 58 cases for the OC and LC groups were selected. No significant differences in age, sex, tumor progression, or procedure type (extended resection or segmental resection) existed between groups. The LC group had significantly less blood loss (20 mL vs. 50 mL, p=0.048) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (8 days vs. 12 days, p<0.001) than the OC group. Postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 2) occurred in 27.6% and 25.9% of the OC and LC groups respectively (p=1). Three patients (5.2%) and one patient (1.7%) of the OC and LC groups respectively developed anastomotic leakage (p=0.62). Re-operation was required in five patients (8.6%) in the OC group and one patient (1.7%) in the LC group (p=0.21). No surgery-related deaths occurred in either group. The 3-year overall survival rates (stage II: LC 100% vs. OC 92.8%, p=0.15; stage III: 88.9% vs. 84.3%, p=0.88, respectively) were similar between the two groups.
conclusionLC is a minimally invasive technique with lesser blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stays, and oncologic equivalence to OC. Hence, LC is useful for MTC treatment.
trial registrationUMIN000042676.
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.