Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39888546›Full record

SynthesisUpdates in surgery2025

Comparison of different surgical techniques and anastomosis methods in short-term outcomes of right colon cancer: a network meta-analysis of open surgery, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis.

Baodong Liao, Xueyi Xue, Hao Zeng, Wen Ye, Tingjiang Xie, Xiaojie Wang, Shuangming Lin

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Baodong LiaoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Anorectal Surgery, Longyan First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, No.105 Jiuyi North Road, Longyan, 364000, Fujian, China.
Xueyi XueDepartment of Gastroenterology and Anorectal Surgery, Longyan First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, No.105 Jiuyi North Road, Longyan, 364000, Fujian, China.
Hao ZengDepartment of Gastroenterology and Anorectal Surgery, Longyan First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, No.105 Jiuyi North Road, Longyan, 364000, Fujian, China.
Wen YeDepartment of Gastroenterology and Anorectal Surgery, Longyan First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, No.105 Jiuyi North Road, Longyan, 364000, Fujian, China.
Tingjiang XieDepartment of Gastroenterology and Anorectal Surgery, Longyan First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, No.105 Jiuyi North Road, Longyan, 364000, Fujian, China.
Xiaojie WangDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Shuangming LinDepartment of Gastroenterology and Anorectal Surgery, Longyan First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, No.105 Jiuyi North Road, Longyan, 364000, Fujian, China. doclin369@fjmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0466-7374

Funding

Lanyan City Joint Funding 2022LYF17094
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the rapid development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, there remains considerable controversy regarding the choice of surgical approach and anastomosis method for patients with right-sded colon cancer (RSCC). This meta-analysis compared the short-term outcomes of open right colectomies (ORC), laparoscopic right colectomies with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (LRC-IA and LRC-EA), as well as robot right colectomies with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (RRC-IA and RRC-EA). A systematic search was conducted across PubMed (n = 549), Web of Science (n = 821), Embase (n = 591), and the Cochrane Central Register (n = 86) from January 2000 to August 2024. Studies comparing at least two of the surgical techniques for RSCC were included. The primary outcomes evaluated were overall complications, wound infection, ileus, and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, time to resume diet, and conversion rates. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. A total of 39 studies comprising 6098 patients were included. The results indicated that LRC-IA had the lowest overall complication rate (OR 0.65; 95% CI [0.41, 1.07]), while ORC had the highest. RRC-IA was most effective in reducing wound infection (OR 0.77; 95% CI [0.39, 1.35]), blood loss (MD 18.01; 95% CI [4.62, 40.87]), and hospital stay (MD 0.93; 95% CI [0.67, 1.31]), while also demonstrating advantages in preventing postoperative ileus (OR 0.47; 95% CI [0.05, 1.31]) and ensuring faster bowel function recovery (OR 0.80; 95% CI [0.44, 1.53]). The analysis demonstrates that for patients with RSCC, RRC shows better short-term outcomes compared to LRC and ORC, while IA also surpasses EA.

Indexed as

Anastomosis, SurgicalColectomyColonic NeoplasmsLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresBlood Loss, SurgicalHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsReoperationTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeAnastomosisLaparoscopyOpenPostoperativeRobotic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.