ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2025
Comparative perioperative outcomes of articulated versus conventional straight devices in laparoscopic low anterior resection: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLaparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer is technically challenging due to the precision required for mesorectal excision. Articulated instruments were developed to improve precision and oncological safety over conventional instruments. This study compares their perioperative outcomes.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of 432 patients with colorectal cancer who underwent low anterior resection between August 2022 and February 2024 applied propensity score matching to minimize selection bias. Primary endpoints were circumferential resection margin (CRM), distal resection margin (DRM), and harvested lymph nodes count. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications.
resultsFollowing propensity score matching, 84 matched pairs were analyzed. Most patients achieved CRM negativity (>1 mm), with CRM ≥10 mm in 67.9% of the articulated group and 59.5% of the conventional group (P=0.613). Median (interquartile range, IQR) lymph nodes harvests were comparable (20 [14-26] vs. 18 [14-22], P=0.147). The articulated group had a significantly longer DRM (30.0 mm [IQR, 18.0-40.0 mm] vs. 24.0 mm [IQR, 12.0-34.2 mm], P=0.008) and the median operation time (111.0 minutes [IQR, 95.8-125.2 minutes] vs. 99.5 minutes [IQR, 72.0-119.8 minutes], P=0.009). Estimated blood loss, open conversion rates, and postoperative complications, including leakage (7.1% vs. 8.3%, P>0.999) and surgical site infections, (15.5% vs. 9.5%, P=0.383), showed no significant differences.
conclusionArticulated laparoscopic instruments demonstrated comparable safety and feasibility to conventional instruments but offered no significant clinical or oncological benefits beyond a longer DRM. Larger studies are needed to evaluate their value in laparoscopic rectal surgery.
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.