ArticleSurgery today2025
Efficacy and long-term outcomes of abdominoperineal resection using transperineal total mesorectal excision approach for rectal cancer.
Article in Surgery today, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough abdominoperineal resection (APR) is essential for a certain population of patients with low rectal cancer, it is technically difficult and sometimes contains oncological disadvantages. Thus, the use of the transperineal total mesorectal excision (TpTME) approach might overcome such concerns regarding APR.
methodsIn total, 27 patients who underwent conventional APR (conventional group) and 49 patients who underwent APR using the TpTME approach (TpTME group) for low rectal cancer were included. After propensity score matching, the outcomes of the 25 matched cases were compared between groups.
resultsThe operative time was significantly shorter in the TpTME group than in the conventional group (452 vs. 565 min, P = 0.039). Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion rates were also significantly lower in the TpTME group than in the conventional group (25 mL vs. 200 mL, P < 0.001 and 0% vs. 28.0%, P = 0.015, respectively). Although the incidence of postoperative complications did not differ significantly, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the TpTME group than in the conventional group (24 vs. 36 days, P = 0.001). The 5 year relapse-free survival rates in the TpTME and conventional groups were 62.0% and 57.6%, respectively (P = 0.648).
conclusionAPR using the TpTME approach for the treatment of low rectal cancer is feasible and can achieve favorable oncological outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39287627What 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.