ArticleLa Tunisie medicale2023
Quality assessment of rectal cancer surgery: How are we doing?
Article in La Tunisie medicale, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSurgery remains a cornerstone in the treatment of rectal cancer. Optimal surgical resection implies respect for carcinologic principles. The best way to evaluate a good quality of resection requires certainly an exhaustive evaluation of the surgical specimen by the surgeon and the pathologist.
aimTo assess the quality of resected rectal cancers.
methodsThis study included patients operated on for rectal malignant epithelial tumors, between January 1st, 2015 and December 31st, 2020, in the general surgery department B at Charles Nicolle's Hospital in Tunis. Data relevant to the pathologic examination were recorded. We performed a descriptive study and an analytic bivariate study comparing the two groups "number of lymph nodes harvested less than 12" versus "number of lymph nodes harvested higher than or equal to 12".
resultsNeoadjuvant therapy was performed in 39 patients (79%). Anterior resection (AR) was performed in 43 patients (43%) and abdominoperineal resection (APR) was performed in 11 patients (20%). There were no invaded margins. The mean distal surgical margin was 3±1.4 cm. Mesorectum was complete in 38 surgical specimens (70%). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 14. Resection was considered R0 in 47 patients (87%). In bivariate analysis, there was no difference between the "number of harvested lymph nodes <12" and the "number of harvested lymph nodes ≥ 12"groups for the variables: laparotomy, laparoscopic approach, conversion to laparotomy and chemoradiotherapy.
conclusionQuality of surgical resection of rectal cancer in our department was in accordance with recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38445425PMC11217982W4394741372What 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.