SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2025
Hybrid laparo-endoscopic techniques for challenging colorectal lesions: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A structured conversion score to guide oncologic colectomy during combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery for complex colonic polyps.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Direct access robotic excision (DARE): a novel colonoscopy-assisted approach for full-thickness resection of complex colonic polyps.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Case Report: Laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative full-thickness resection for recurrent transverse colon cancer after rectal cancer surgery: a case report with video.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery in gastrointestinal tumors: current applications, oncologic considerations, and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer screening has increased the detection of polyps requiring resection, but standard endoscopic techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are often unsuitable for large, fibrotic, or anatomically challenging lesions. Segmental colectomy remains definitive but carries substantial morbidity, particularly for benign disease. Laparo-endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) and related hybrid techniques have emerged as minimally invasive alternatives bridging the gap between endoscopic and surgical resection.
methodsA systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines, querying PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (1985-2024). Studies reporting combined laparoscopic-endoscopic resections for colorectal lesions unsuitable for standard endoscopic treatment were included. Outcomes assessed included additional surgery, adenocarcinoma detection, complication rates, surgery for complications, conversion to open surgery, and recurrence. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsTwenty-seven studies encompassing 1112 patients were included. The pooled rate of additional surgery was 5% (95% CI 3-8%; I
conclusionsHybrid laparoscopic-endoscopic resections are safe, effective, and reproducible options for complex colorectal lesions not amenable to standard endoscopic resection. These techniques achieve low complication and recurrence rates while preserving bowel and minimizing morbidity associated with colectomy. Given the 12% incidence of unexpected adenocarcinoma, intraoperative adaptability and multidisciplinary expertise are essential. Prospective multicenter studies with standardized reporting are needed to refine patient selection and confirm long-term oncologic safety.
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.