ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for overweight colon cancer patients: a case-control study.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Comparison of Minimally Invasive Colectomy Between Intra- Versus Extra-Corporeal Anastomosis Technique (COMMIT Study): Mid-Term Analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Minimizing incisional hernia: intracorporeal anastomosis makes the difference after laparoscopic right colectomy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEither extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) or intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) could be selected for digestive reconstruction in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH). However, whether LRH with IA is feasible and beneficial for overweight right-side colon cancer (RCC) is unclear. This study aims to investigate the feasibility and advantage of IA in LRH for overweight RCC.
methodsForty-eight consecutive overweight RCC patients undergoing LRH with IA were matched with 48 consecutive cases undergoing LRH with EA. Both clinical and surgical data were collected and analyzed.
resultsThe incidence of postoperative complications was 20.8% (10/48) in the EA group and 14.6% (7/48) in the IA group respectively, with no statistical difference. Compared to the EA group, patients in the IA group revealed faster gas (40.2 + 7.8 h vs. 45.6 + 7.9 h, P = 0.001) and stool discharge (4.0 + 1.2 d vs. 4.5 + 1.1 d, P = 0.040), shorter assisted incision (5.3 + 1.3 cm vs. 7.5 + 1.2 cm, P = 0.000), and less analgesic used (3.3 + 1.3 d vs. 4.0 + 1.3 d, P = 0.012). There were no significant differences in operation time, blood loss, or postoperative hospital stays. In the IA group, the first one third of cases presented longer operation time (228.4 + 29.3 min) compared to the middle (191.0 + 35.0 min, P = 0.003) and the last one third of patients (182.2 + 20.7 min, P = 0.000).
conclusionLRH with IA is feasible and safe for overweight RCC, with faster bowel function recovery and less pain. Accumulation of certain cases of LRH with IA will facilitate surgical procedures and reduce operation time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38587671What 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.