SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
A systematic review and meta-analysis of intraperitoneal anastomosis versus extraperitoneal anastomosis in laparoscopic left colectomy.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Personalized sports recommendation systems using robotic-assisted techniques in urologic oncology recovery.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
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
Background: The effectiveness of the anastomosis method for laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) remains inconclusive. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the outcomes between intraperitoneal anastomosis (IPA) and extraperitoneal anastomosis(EPA)in LLC. Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and WanFangData were systematically searched for relevant literature. The literature was screened independently by two groups, and data were extracted and evaluated for bias. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman5.4 software. Results: Twelve studies with a total of 1,278 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with the EPA group, the IPA group had less blood loss [odds ratio (OR)=-20.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-27.98-12.65), p<0.00001], a lower overall complication rate [OR=0.45, 95% CI (0.33-0.63), p<0.00001], fewer non-severe complications [OR=0.44, 95% CI (0.30-0.64), p<0.0001], and fewer surgical site infections [OR=0.39, 95% CI (0.21-0.71), p=0.002]. Additionally, a longer operation time appeared in the multicenter and propensity score matching (PSM) subgroups of the IPA group. Furthermore, patients in the IPA group had an earlier exhaust time and shorter hospital stays. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding severe complications, anastomose-related complications, postoperative blood transfusion, ileus, reoperation rate, time to stool, pathologic sample length, and lymph node dissection number. Conclusion: IPA seems more advantageous than EPA for patients receiving LCC in terms of complications and postoperative recovery and has similar oncological outcomes. However, it may take longer and be more difficult to perform. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails PROSPERO, identifier (CRD4202454391).
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.