ArticleBMC surgery2025
Short-term outcomes of open versus laparoscopic surgery in patients with metachronous colorectal cancer.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open, Laparoscopic, and robotic approaches in colorectal surgery: a comprehensive review with focus on colorectal cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- MR Defecography Improves Diagnosis of Postoperative Pelvic Floor Dysfunction After Gynecological Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Comparing the effects of laparoscopic radical surgery and traditional open surgery on short-term efficacy and long-term survival in patients with colorectal cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have assessed the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in patients with metachronous colorectal cancer (MCRC). This study aims to evaluate the safety and outcomes of laparoscopic surgery in MCRC patients who have previously undergone colorectal cancer surgery.
methodsWe compared the short-term outcomes of open versus laparoscopic surgery in patients with MCRC between October 2007 and October 2022.
resultsAmong the 59 MCRC patients, 25 underwent laparoscopic surgery, whereas 34 received open surgery. The proportion of patients who underwent prior open surgeries was significantly greater in the open group than in the laparoscopic group (91.2% vs. 24.0%, p < 0.001). Three patients (12.0%) in the laparoscopic group required conversion to laparotomy due to severe intra-abdominal adhesions, all of whom had a history of open surgery for colorectal cancer. Compared to the open surgery group, the laparoscopic group presented significantly less estimated blood loss (56.80 ± 115.47 vs. 136.47 ± 158.61 ml, p = 0.038), a shorter time to the first flatus (2.20 ± 0.76 vs. 3.50 ± 0.62 days, p < 0.001), a shorter time to the first stool (2.92 ± 0.64 vs. 4.32 ± 0.64 days, p < 0.001), and a shorter postoperative hospitalization duration (7.24 ± 2.42 vs. 10.79 ± 3.50 days, p < 0.001).
conclusionLaparoscopic surgery for MCRC patients is a safe and less invasive alternative to open surgery, resulting in reduced estimated blood loss, faster recovery of bowel function, and shorter postoperative hospitalization.
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.