ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery
Laparoscopic versus open surgical management in elderly patients with rectal cancer aged 70 and older.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery. 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.
- Urinary and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical study of electroacupuncture on the recovery of gastrointestinal dysfunction after laparoscopic surgery for gastrointestinal cancer - study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This retrospective study aimed to compare the short- and long-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery in elderly patients with rectal cancer. Patients and Methods: Elderly patients (≥70 years old) with rectal cancer who received radical surgery were retrospectively analysed. Patients were matched (1:1 ratio) using propensity score matching (PSM), with age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and tumour-node-metastasis staging included as covariates. Baseline characteristics, post-operative complications, short- and long-term surgical outcomes and overall survival (OS) were compared between the two matched groups. Results: Sixty-one pairs were selected after PSM. Patients with laparoscopic surgery had a longer duration of operation time, lower estimated blood loss, shorter duration of post-operative analgesics administered, time to first flatus, time to first oral diet and post-operative hospitalisation stay than those observed in patients with open surgery (All P < 0.05). The incidence of post-operative complications in the open surgery group was numerically higher than that occurred in the laparoscopic surgery group (30.6% vs. 17.7%). Median OS was 67.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 62.2-71.8) in the laparoscopic surgery group and 65.0 months (95% CI, 59.9-70.1) in the open surgery group, however, Kaplan-Meier curves indicated that no significant differences in OS (Log-rank test, P = 0.535) were noted between the two matched groups. Conclusions: Compared with the open surgery, laparoscopic surgery had the advantages of less trauma and faster recovery, and provided similar long-term prognostic outcome in elderly patients with rectal cancer.
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.