ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2024
Feasibility and safety of minimally invasive multivisceral resection for T4b rectal cancer: A 9-year review.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 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
- Short- and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive vs. open pelvic exenteration in rectal tumours: a focused meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
- Rectal Resection with Hysterectomy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Using the hinotori Surgical Robot System: The First Ever Case Report.Yonago acta medica · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive multivisceral resection in rectal cancer: Preparation or Precipitation?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Advances in beyond total mesorectal excision surgery: Behind the scenes.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Beyond total mesorectal excision: The emerging role of minimally invasive surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive pelvic exenteration for primary or recurrent locally advanced rectal cancer: A glimpse into the future.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second highest cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. About 5%-10% of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) on presentation. For LARC invading into other structures (
aimTo assess the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive MVR (miMVR), and compare post-operative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic MVR.
methodsThis is a single-center retrospective cohort study from 1
resultsA total of 46 patients were included in this study [open MVR (oMVR): 12 (26.1%), miMVR: 36 (73.9%)]. Patients' American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index and co-morbidities were comparable between oMVR and miMVR. There is an increasing trend towards robotic MVR from 2015 to 2023. MiMVR was associated with lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (median 450
conclusionMiMVR had lower post-operative complications compared to oMVR. Robotic MVR was also safe, with acceptable post-operative complication rates. Prospective studies should be conducted to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic
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.