ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2025
Efficacy of laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer in older patients and its effects on inflammatory factors.
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.
- Impact of BMI on robotic rectal cancer surgery versus three-dimensional laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a retrospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Advancing minimally invasive surgery for elderly colorectal cancer patients: Bridging evidence to practice.World journal of gastrointestinal 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, open surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) exhibits certain therapeutic efficacy; however, it may also hinder postoperative recovery in patients. Therefore, more advanced surgical methods are required to ensure smoother postoperative recovery.
aimTo analyze the efficacy of laparoscopic radical resection of CRC (LRRCC) in treating older patients with CRC and the effect of this procedure on inflammatory factors.
methodsThe study included 104 older patients with CRC admitted from August 2022 to August 2024. Participants undergoing open radical resection of CRC were categorized as the control group (50 patients), whereas those receiving LRRCC were classified as the research group (54 patients). Subsequently, comparative analyses involved data on efficacy, postoperative complications (ileus, incision infection, anastomotic fistula, and pulmonary infection), surgery-related parameters (operation duration and intraoperative bleeding volume), postoperative recovery-related indicators (time to first postoperative passage of flatus and defecation and length of hospital stay), and inflammatory factors (tumor necrosis factor-α, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and interleukin-6).
resultsData revealed markedly superior therapeutic efficacy and a lower overall postoperative complication rate in the research group compared to the control group. The research group demonstrated substantially less intraoperative bleeding, less time to first postoperative passage of flatus and defecation, and a shorter length of hospital stay despite a notably longer operation duration compared to the control group. Further, tumor necrosis factor-α, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and interleukin-6 levels in the research group were significantly reduced 3 days postoperatively compared to both the preoperative and control group values.
conclusionLRRCC for older patients with CRC exhibited superior therapeutic efficacy compared to open radical resection and significantly suppressed postoperative stress-related inflammatory responses, which merits clinical application and 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.