ArticleBMC cancer2025
Efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. 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.
- Two-portWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic radical resection has become the most important treatment for resectable colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there is still a lack of researches on the efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in the treatment of CRC. PATIENTS AND
methodsFrom January 2019 to July 2022, 698 patients with CRC received surgical treatment in the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into RPLS group (n = 220) and CLS group (n = 478) according to their surgical procedures. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust the differences in baseline characteristics. The incidence of perioperative outcomes and survival rates related results were analyzed after PSM.
resultsFour hundred twenty-two patients were equally divided into RPLS group (n = 211) and CLS group (n = 211) after PSM. There were no statistically significant differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the two groups (P value was 0.773 and 0.579 respectively). The perioperative outcomes of patients between the two groups were comparable, except that patients in the RPLS group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P value < 0.001).
conclusionFor patients with CRC, both RPLS and CLS might be acceptable surgical options. No significant differences in perioperative outcomes, PFS rates and OS rates were observed between the two groups. For certain cases, RPLS was superior to CLS in terms of postoperative recovery.
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.