ArticleSurgery in practice and science2023
Evaluation of long-term oncological outcomes of inter-sphincter resection compared with abdominoperineal resection for treatment of ultra-low rectal cancers: a single center 5-year experience.
Article in Surgery in practice and science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is considered the gold standard surgical treatment for ultra-low rectal cancer. Anus-preserving alternative procedures have been tested to avoid the need for a permanent colostomy. The present study compares the functional and oncological outcomes of the traditional APR methods with inter-sphincteric resection (ISR). Methods: Sixty patients with ultra-low rectal cancers that underwent tumor resection using the ISR and APR methods were compared retrospectively. Patients' demographic information as well as tumor characteristics were evaluated. All patients were followed after the operation every three months for two years, and then every six months for at least three years. Results: Thirty-four (56.6%) patients were male, and 26 (43.3%) were females, which showed no statistical significance between the two groups. The mean tumor distance from the anal verge in the APR group was 5.11±0.06 cm and in the ISR group was 5.22±1.1 cm. In the APR group, 9 (30%) patients developed primary tumor recurrence, while in the ISR group, 10 (33.3%) patients had relapses. The observed difference was not statistically significant. However, the study showed that patients with a T stage of T2 or higher had a higher probability of tumor recurrence. Conclusion: There is no significant difference in the efficacy of the ISR method compared with the conventional APR for the treatment of ultra-low rectal cancer.
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.