ArticleScientific reports2024
Advantages of the split-leg supine position single-port plus one laparoscopic surgery approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Surgical treatment of colorectal cancer: A multidimensional review.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this study was to compare the advantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) and the split-leg supine position single-port plus one laparoscopic surgery (SSP SILS + 1) in esophageal surgery. This study enrolled 73 patients who previously underwent radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer from August 2021 to February 2023. Among them, 36 patients underwent SSP SILS + 1, whereas the remaining 37 patients underwentCLS. Surgical time, bleeding volume, number of dissected lymph nodes, incision length, and postoperative abdominal pain score between the two groups of patients were compared using either the Student's t-test or chi-square test. Time of abdominal incision (1.4 ± 0.2 min vs. 5.2 ± 0.7 min, p < 0.001) was shorter in patients in the SSP SILS + 1 group compared with those in the CLS group. However, the average incision length was shorter in the SSP SILS + 1 group compared with that in the CLS group (35.4 ± 4.0 cm vs. 4.6 ± 4.1 cm, p < 0.001). Notably, the pain score on postoperative day (POD) 1 was lower in the SSP SILS + 1 group compared with that in the CLS group (5.7 ± 0.7 vs.6.3 ± 0.7, p = 0.001). The SCAR score was also lower in the SSP SILS + 1 group compared with that in the CLS group (3.5 ± 0.9 vs. 8.3 ± 1.4, p = 0.019). There was no significant difference in the number of dissected abdominal lymph nodes and positive lymph nodes (p > 0.01) between the two groups. The SSP SILS + 1 intervention offers multiple benefits over conventional surgical procedures, encompassing shorter incision length and pain scores on POD 1. In accelerated rehabilitation surgery for esophageal cancer, this surgical procedure demonstrated high safety, feasibility.
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.