ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2024
Feasibility of transperineal minimal invasive surgery when performing sacrectomy for advanced primary and recurrent pelvic malignancies.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep learning algorithms for predicting pathological complete response in MRI of rectal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
- Short- and mid-term outcomes of transanal/transperineal minimally invasive surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive transabdominal surgery (MIS) with transperineal minimal invasive surgery (tpMIS) for sacrectomy in advanced primary and recurrent pelvic malignancies.
methodsUsing a prospectively collected database, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical, surgical, and pathological outcomes of MIS with tpMIS for sacrectomies. Surgery was performed between February 2019 and May 2023. The median follow-up period was 27 months (5-46 months).
resultsFifteen consecutive patients were included in this analysis. The diagnoses were as follows: recurrent rectal cancer, n = 11 (73%); primary rectal cancer, n = 3 (20%); and recurrent ovarian cancer, n = 1 (7%). Seven patients (47%) underwent pelvic exenteration with sacrectomy, six patients (40%) underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR) with sacrectomy, and two patients (13%) underwent tumor resection with sacrectomy. The median intraoperative blood loss was 235 ml (range 45-1320 ml). The postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3a) were graded as follows: 3a, n = 6 (40%); 3b, n = 1 (7%); and ≥ 4, n = 0 (0%). Pathological examinations demonstrated that R0 was achieved in 13 patients (87%). During the follow-up period, two patients (13%) developed local re-recurrence due to recurrent cancer. The remaining 13 patients (87%) had no local disease. Fourteen patients (93%) survived.
conclusionsAlthough the patient cohort in this study is heterogeneous, MIS with tpMIS was associated with a very small amount of blood loss, a low incidence of severe postoperative complications, and an acceptable R0 resection rate. Further studies are needed to clarify the long-term oncological feasibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38971941What 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.