ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2024
Safe implementation of minimally invasive surgery in a specialized colorectal cancer unit.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Perioperative intravenous lidocaine for gastrointestinal recovery and pain control in elective colorectal surgery: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Impact and evolution of minimal invasive surgery in a centralized colorectal service: trends, safety and oncological outcomes across 15 years.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Single-portAnnals of surgical treatment and research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn the past 30 years, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has made remarkable progress and has become the standard of care in colorectal cancer treatment. The implementation of new techniques or platforms is, therefore, a challenge for surgical teams. This study aims to analyze the experience in the implementation of minimally invasive surgery in the colorectal unit in a specialized colorectal cancer center. We will report and compare the clinical outcomes of the patients submitted to the different surgical approaches, reflecting the importance of surgical training in the laparoscopic and robotic field for the reduction of surgical complications and improve short-term outcomes.
methodsThis study involved a retrospective analysis of data collected from a prospectively maintained database at the colorectal unit of Champalimaud Foundation between 2012 and 2023. Data were collected as part of routine clinical documentation and included variables on patient's demographics, staging, short-term outcomes, and follow-up.
resultsA total of 661 patients treated at the Champalimaud Foundation between 2012 and 2023 were included, of which 389 (59%) had colon and 272 (41%) rectal cancer. Most of the patients underwent elective surgery, with a minimally invasive approach performed in 91% of cases. A complete resection (R0) was achieved in 95.1% (619) of the procedures with a pathology report staging 64.5% (409) of tumors as pT3-4. Eleven percent (70) of patients had complications classified as Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ 3.
conclusionThis study supports the safety of the implementation of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer care, with improvement in postoperative outcomes and surgical quality, supporting the importance of surgical training and specialized teams.
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.