SynthesisJournal of surgical oncology2025
R0 Resection Rates in Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pelvic Exenteration for Colorectal Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of surgical oncology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesPelvic exenteration is a curative option for select patients with locally invasive or recurrent colorectal cancer. Achieving clear margins (R0 resection) is critical for optimal oncological outcomes and quality of life. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), including laparoscopic and robotic approaches, offers advantages in visualisation and precision, but its feasibility is debated given data limitations. This meta-analysis compares outcomes of MIS with open pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted with studies comparing MIS to open approaches for pelvic exenteration in colorectal cancer included. The primary outcome was R0 resection rate, with secondary outcomes encompassing operative, postoperative, and oncological results.
resultsSeven retrospective studies were analysed, including a total of 564 patients. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in R0 resection rates between MIS and open approaches (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.51, p = 0.41) with low heterogeneity (I
conclusionsMIS achieves comparable R0 resection rates to open surgery in pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer, with advantages in recovery and survival outcomes. Current evidence is limited by retrospective studies with selection bias requiring future standardised prospective trials.
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.