ArticleSurgery today2025
Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer in non-elite cases.
Article in Surgery today, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Permissive hypercapnia combined with goal-directed fluid therapy improve postoperative mental health in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.World journal of psychiatry · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer in non-elite cases.
methodsWe defined patients whose clinical characteristics conformed to the criteria of the JCOG0404 trial as "elite" and those whose clinical characteristics did not conform to these criteria as "non-elite". Patients with Stage II/III colorectal cancer (n = 450) were analyzed. The elite (E) and non-elite (NE) groups were further divided into open (E-Open, NE-Open) and laparoscopic (E-Lap, NE-Lap) surgery groups. We compared the short- and long-term outcomes of these groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed when comparing the NE groups.
resultsThe E group included 163 patients and the NE group included 287 patients. Before and after PSM, the NE-Lap group had significantly longer operative times, lower postoperative complication rates, earlier recovery of bowel function, and shorter postoperative hospital stays than the NE-Open group. After PSM, the Clavien-Dindo classification Grade ≥ III complications and reoperation rates in the NE-Lap group were significantly lower than those in the NE-Open group. The short-term outcomes of the NE-Lap group were comparable with those of the E-Lap group. The 5-year overall survival rates were not significantly different among the groups.
conclusionLaparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer is effective and safe, even in non-elite cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39472316What 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.