ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Application of modified extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer resection.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic ELAPE surgery has been carried out in our center for a long time, and some modifications have been made in clinical practice. In this study, we compared conventional ELAPE operation with modified ELAPE operation to investigate the efficacy and safety of modified ELAPE operation.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data from 339 patients with low rectal cancer undergoing abdominoperineal resection from 2017 to 2021 in the Department of General Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University. Patients were classified into modified ELAPE groups (199 patients) and conventional ELAPE groups (140 patients). Total operation time, reconstruction time, postoperative hospital stay, total cost, intraoperative data, postoperative short-term and long-term complications and tumor recurrence were compared.
resultsThe baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Total operation time was less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (190.6 ± 33.1 min vs 230.1 ± 51.6 min, P = 0.022). Pelvic floor reconstruction time was also less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (4.3 ± 1.2 min vs 11.9 ± 1.7 min, P = 0.004). Positive CRM was observed in 11 and 9 patients in modified ELAPE groups and conventional ELAPE groups (P = 0.744). IOP occurred in 12 and 7 patients in modified ELAPE group and conventional ELAPE group (P = 0.701). Total cost was also less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (9004 ± 1146 USD vs 10,336 ± 2047 USD, P = 0.031). The incidence of parastomal hernia was less with modified ELAPE group compared to conventional ELAPE group (7/199 vs 22/140, P < 0.001). Three-year follow-up data did not show any difference in overall survival rate or local occurrence between the two groups.
conclusionModified ELAPE surgery is technically safe and feasible, and oncologically comparable to that of conventional ELAPE surgery, which can be considered for popularization and application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39266762What 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.