ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2025
Short-term efficacy of laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer and risk of unplanned reoperation after surgery.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two-portWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of surgical trauma between three endoscopic thyroidectomy approaches and open surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgery is the first choice of treatment for patients with colorectal cancer. Traditional open surgery imparts great damage to the body of the patient and can easily cause adverse stress reactions. With the continuous development of medical technology, laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery has shown great advantages for the treatment of patients with celiac disease.
aimTo investigate the short-term efficacy of laparoscopic radical surgery and traditional laparotomy for the treatment of colorectal cancer, and the differences in the risk analysis of unplanned reoperation after operation.
methodsAs the research subjects, this study selected 100 patients with colorectal cancer who received surgical treatment at the Yulin First Hospital from January 2018 to January 2022. Among them, 50 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical resection were selected as the research group and 50 patients who underwent traditional laparotomy were selected as the control group. Data pertaining to clinical indexes, gastrointestinal hormones, nutrition indexes, the levels of inflammatory factors, quality of life, Visual Analog Scale score, and the postoperative complications of the two groups of patients before and after treatment were collected, and the therapeutic effects in the two groups were analyzed and compared.
resultsCompared with the control group, perioperative bleeding, peristalsis recovery time, and hospital stays were significantly shorter in the research group. After surgery, the levels of gastrin (GAS) and motilin (MTL) were decreased in both groups, and the fluctuation range of GAS and MTL observed in the research group was significantly lower than that recorded in the control group. The hemoglobin (Hb) levels increased after surgery, and the level of Hb in the research group was significantly higher compared with the control group. After the operation, the expression levels of tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6, and C-reactive protein and the total incidence of complications were significantly lower in the research group compared with the control group. One year after the operation, the quality of life of the two groups was greatly improved, with the quality of life in the research group being significantly better.
conclusionLaparoscopy was effective for colorectal surgery by reducing the occurrence of complications and inflammatory stress reaction; moreover, the quality of life of patients was significantly improved, which warrants further promotion.
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.