SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2024
Systematic review of the feasibility of sparing the rectoprostatic fascia in male patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.
Synthesis 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 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.
- Perioperative Patient Blood Management: Evidence-Based Strategies for Surgeons and Anesthesiologists: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe main purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of sparing the rectoprostatic fascia (RPF) in adult male cadavers and in adult male patients who underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. A secondary objective was to evaluate urogenital function following rectal cancer surgery, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes.
methodsIn accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review with an a priori design to identify relevant studies via MESH terms and keywords. Research was conducted from March 1st to July 31st 2023 and was updated between September 30th to October 10th 2024 in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, the Web of Science, Google Scholar, and reference lists. Disagreements between individual judgments were resolved by referral to a third researcher.
resultsIn total, 3693 studies were identified, 22 of which were relevant to the main research question. Overall, 785 living individuals and 25 cadavers were included in whom RPF was identified and spared (498/785 patients or 63.44%). The quality of the surgical specimen was considered good in all cases. Urogenital integrity at 6 months after RPF-TME and the classic TME were compromised in 27.9% and 41% of patients, respectively. One study revealed that at 3 years, local/systemic recurrence was similar between the two groups.
conclusionsDespite the fact that the current practice of rectal cancer surgery requires the TME to extend anteriorly to the RPF, RPF-sparing TME is not only a feasible and safe option but also important for preserving fair male urogenital function, especially for young patients whose erectile function is a priority.
trial registrationCRD42020171188.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39656328What 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.