ReviewVisceral medicine2024
Completion Surgery after Non-Curative Local Resection of Early Rectal Cancer.
Review in Visceral medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Salvage Surgery After Non-Curative Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Colorectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The expanding indications of local - endoscopic and transanal surgical - resection of early rectal cancer has led to their increased popularity and inclusion in the treatment guidelines. The accuracy of the current diagnostic tools in identifying the low-risk T1 tumors that can be curatively treated with a local resection is low, and thus several patients require additional oncologic surgery with total mesorectal excision (TME). An efficient clinical strategy which avoids overtreatment and obstacle surgical procedures is under debate between different disciplines. Summary: Completion surgery has comparable outcomes to primary surgery regarding perioperative morbidity and mortality but also recurrence rates and overall survival. However, local scarring in the mesorectum can make mesorectal excision technically challenging, especially after full-thickness resections, and has been associated with increased rates of permanent ostomy and worse quality of the TME specimen. This risk seems to be lower after muscle-sparing procedures like endoscopic submucosal dissection, which seem to show a benefit in comparison to full-thickness resections. Key Messages: Completion surgery after non-curative local resection of gastrointestinal malignancies is safe and feasible. Full-thickness resection techniques can cause scarring of the mesorectum; therefore, muscle-sparing procedures should be preferred.
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.