SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2024
Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopy surgery versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-Term Comparative Outcomes of Single-Port Robotic Surgery and Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery in Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Multicentre Study.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026Article
- Single-incision plus one robot-assisted surgery (SIPORS) using the Hugo robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) system for rectal cancer.Annals of coloproctology · 2025Article
- Surgical treatment of colorectal cancer: A multidimensional review.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic-assisted surgery for Meckel's diverticulum in children: a single-center propensity score analysis.BMC pediatrics · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe efficacy of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colorectal cancer treatment remains unclear. This study compares the short-term and long-term outcomes of SILS + 1 and CLS using a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodLiterature search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, drawing from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until December 10, 2023. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan and Stata.
resultThe review and meta-analysis included seven studies with 1740 colorectal cancer patients. Compared to CLS, SILS + 1 showed significant improvements in operation time (WMD = - 18.33, P < 0.00001), blood loss (WMD = - 21.31, P < 0.00001), incision length (WMD = - 2.07, P < 0.00001), time to first defecation (WMD = - 14.91, P = 0.009), time to oral intake (WMD = - 11.46, P = 0.04), and time to ambulation (WMD = - 11.52, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in lymph node harvest, resection margins, complications, anastomotic leakage, hospital stay, disease-free survival, overall survival, and postoperative recurrence.
conclusionsCompared to CLS, SILS + 1 demonstrates superiority in shortening the surgical incision and promoting postoperative recovery. SILS + 1 can provide a safe and feasible alternative to CLS.
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.