ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Comparative analysis of short- and long-term outcomes in laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer patients undergoing hemodialysis.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough minimally invasive colorectal surgery has been proven to have a shorter hospital stay and fewer short-term complications than open surgery, the advantages of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer patients undergoing hemodialysis have not been validated. This study compared the outcomes of open and laparoscopic approaches in these patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween January 2007 and December 2020, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 78 hemodialysis patients who underwent curative-intent, elective colorectal surgery. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical method: open and laparoscopic.
resultsPostoperative morbidity (p = 0.480) and mortality (p = 0.598) rates and length of hospital stay (28.8 vs. 27.5 days, p = 0.830) were similar between the groups. However, laparoscopic surgery patients had a shorter return to clear liquid, full liquid, or soft food time than open surgery patients (p < 0.001, p = 0.007, and p = 0.002, respectively). Disease-free survival and long-term cancer-specific survival rates were also similar between the two groups (p = 0.353 and p = 0.201, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that intraoperative blood transfusion was a risk factor for severe complications and mortality (OR 6.055; p = 0.046), and the odds ratio (OR) of laparoscopic surgery was not significantly greater than that of open surgery (OR = 0.537, p = 0.337).
conclusionAlthough laparoscopic surgery did not result in hemodialysis patients having a shorter postoperative hospital stay, our results suggest that the laparoscopic approach is as safe as open surgery for hemodialysis patients and may be beneficial for shortening the return time to food intake.
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.