SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2023
Complete mesocolic excision versus standard resection for colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative safety and an evaluation of the use of a robotic approach.
Synthesis 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Evidence for the extent and oncological benefits of lymphadenectomy in colon and rectal cancer : A narrative review based on meta-analyses].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Pooled it
- Docking optimization for right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolon excision (CME) with HUGO™ robotic system: the "Gemelli configuration".Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Oncologic standards in colon cancer resection: from margins to lymph node yield and mesentery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Feasibility of the hinotori™ surgical robot system in right colectomy: a propensity score matching study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Quality assessment of surgery for colorectal cancer: Where do we stand?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum in minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis.Gastroenterology report · 2024Review
- Grand challenges in colorectal and proctological surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeComplete mesocolic excision (CME) has been associated with improved oncological outcomes in treatment of colon cancer. However, widespread adoption is limited partly because of the technical complexity and perceived risks of the approach. The aim of out study was to evaluate the safety of CME compared to standard resection and to compare robotic versus laparoscopic approaches.
methodsTwo parallel searches were undertaken in MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases 12 December 2021. The first was to evaluate IDEAL stage 3 evidence to compare complication rates as a surrogate marker of perioperative safety between CME and standard resection. The second independent search compared lymph node yield and survival outcomes between minimally invasive approaches.
resultsThere were four randomized control trials (n = 1422) comparing CME to standard resection, and three studies comparing laparoscopic (n = 164) to robotic (n = 161) approaches. Compared to standard resection, CME was associated with a reduction in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher complication rates (3.56% vs. 7.24%, p = 0.002), reduced blood loss (113.1 ml vs. 137.6 ml, p < 0.0001) and greater mean lymph node harvest (25.6 vs. 20.9 nodes, p = 0.001). Between the robotic and laparoscopic groups, there were no significant differences in complication rates, blood loss, lymph node yield, 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.05, p = 0.87) and overall survival (OR 0.83, p = 0.54).
conclusionsOur study demonstrated improved safety with CME. There was no difference in safety or survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic CME. The advantage of a robotic approach may lie in the reduced learning curve and an increased penetration of minimally invasive approach to CME. Further studies are required to explore this. PROSPERO ID: CRD42021287065.
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.