Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38686198›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024

Short- and long-term outcomes after surgical treatment of 5918 patients with splenic flexure colon cancer by extended right colectomy, segmental colectomy and left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yu Cao, Mingze He, Kuo Chen, Zheng Liu, Denis I Khlusov, Tatyana V Khorobrykh, Xinren Cao, Polina D Panova, Sergey K Efetov, Airazat M Kazaryan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Yu Cao *Department of Faculty Surgery No. 2, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Mingze He *Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Kuo ChenDepartment of Breast Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Zheng LiuDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Denis I KhlusovDepartment of Faculty Surgery No. 2, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Tatyana V KhorobrykhDepartment of Faculty Surgery No. 2, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Xinren CaoDepartment of Faculty Surgery No. 2, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Polina D PanovaDepartment of Faculty Surgery No. 2, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Sergey K EfetovDepartment of Faculty Surgery No. 2, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Airazat M KazaryanDepartment of Faculty Surgery No. 2, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Colorectal cancer is among the most common cancers in the world, and splenic flexure colon cancer accounts for about 2-5% of them. There is still no consensus on the surgical treatment of splenic flexure colon cancer (SFCC), and the extent of surgical resection and lymph node dissection for SFCC is still controversial. Aim: To compare the postoperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of extended right colectomy (ERC), segmental colectomy (SC) and left colectomy (LC) for SFCC. Method: Up to March 2024, retrospective and prospective studies of ERC, SC, and LC for SFCC were searched through databases. Pooled weighted/standardized mean difference (WMD/SMD), odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a fixed effects model or random effects model, and meta-analysis was performed using Stata. Results: This meta-analysis includes 5,918 patients from 13 studies with more lymph node harvest (OR:6.29; 95%Cl: 3.66-8.91; Z=4.69, P=0), more operation time (WMD: 22.53; 95%Cl: 18.75-26.31; Z=11.68, P=0), more blood loss (WMD:58.44; 95%Cl: 20.20-96.68; Z=2.99, P=0.003), longer hospital stay (WMD:1.74; 95%Cl: 0.20-3.29; Z=2.21, P=0.03), longer time to return to regular diet (WMD:3.17; 95%Cl: 2.05-4.30; Z=5.53, P=0), longer first flatus time (WMD:1.66; 95%Cl: 0.96-2.37; Z=4.61, P=0) in ERC versus SC. More lymph node harvest (WMD: 3.52; 95% Cl: 1.59-5.44; Z=3.58, P=0) in ERC versus LC and LC versus SC (WMD: 1.97; 95% CI: 0.53-3.41; Z=2.68, P=0.007), respectively. There is no significant difference between anastomotic leakage, postoperative ileus, total postoperative complication, severe postoperative complication, wound infection, reoperations, R0 resection, postoperative mortality, 5-year overall survival (OS), 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) in three group of patients. In LC versus SC and ERC versus LC, there is no difference between operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, return to regular diet, and first flatus. Conclusion: In the included studies, SC and LC may be more advantageous, with fewer postoperative complications and faster recovery. ERC harvests more lymph nodes, but there is no significant difference in long-term OS and DFS between the three surgical approaches. Given that the included studies were retrospective, more randomized controlled trials are needed to validate this conclusion.

Indexed as

colon cancercolorectal surgeryextended right colectomyleft colectomysplenic flexure cancermeta-analysissegmental colectomysplenic flexure colon cancersystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38686198
PMCPMC11057231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.