ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2024
Short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched cohort study.
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 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.
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadical surgery remains the primary option for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) as it has the potential to considerably extend the patient's lifespan. At present, the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for LRRC remains unclear.
methodsThe clinical data of patients with LRRC who were admitted to the Cancer Hospital of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences between 2015 and 2021 were retrospectively analyzed in this study. Patients were categorized into two groups, namely the open group and the laparoscopic group, based on the surgical method used. Propensity score matching was used to reduce baseline differences. The short-term outcomes and long-term survival between the two groups were compared.
resultsCurative surgery was performed on 111 patients who were diagnosed with LRRC. After propensity score matching, a total of 80 patients were included and divided into the laparoscopic group (40 patients) and the open group (40 patients). The laparoscopic group had less intraoperative bleeding (100 vs. 300, P = 0.011), a lower postoperative complication rate (20.0% vs. 42.5%, P = 0.030), a lower incidence of wound infection (0 vs. 15.0%, P = 0.026), and a shorter time to first flatus (2 vs. 3, P = 0.005). The laparoscopic group had higher 3-year overall survival (85.4% vs. 57.5%, P = 0.016) and 3-year disease-free survival (63.9% vs 36.5%, P = 0.029).
conclusionsIn comparison to open surgery, laparoscopic surgery is linked to less bleeding during the operation, quicker recovery after the surgery, and a lower incidence of infections at the surgical site. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery for LRRC might yield superior long-term survival outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39138721What 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.