ArticleCureus2025
Early Complication Differences Between Laparoscopic and Open Abdominoperineal Resection.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is a common surgical approach for low rectal cancer (RC). With advancements in minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic APR (LAPR) has gained popularity. However, comparative data on early postoperative complications between laparoscopic and open APR (OAPR) remain limited at Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC), Karachi. Objective The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate any 30-day postoperative complications. Secondary endpoints included surgical site infection (SSI), pulmonary complications, intraoperative blood loss, operative time, and length of hospital stay. The study aimed to compare these outcomes between laparoscopic and OAPR in patients with low RC. It was hypothesized that patients undergoing LAPR would have fewer early postoperative complications than those undergoing OAPR. Methodology This prospective, comparative observational study was conducted at JPMC, Karachi, from January 2024 to January 2025. A total of 90 patients diagnosed with low rectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled and divided equally into two groups: LAPR (Group A) and OAPR (Group B). Standardized surgical techniques were employed in both groups. Patients were monitored for 30 days postoperatively for complications such as SSIs, pulmonary issues, ileus, and reoperations. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (Released 2018; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), with significance set at p < 0.05. Results The laparoscopic group had a longer mean operative time than the open group (195.2 ± 23.4 vs. 158.7 ± 20.1 minutes, p < 0.001) but showed reduced intraoperative blood loss (120.5 ± 40.8 vs. 285.3 ± 60.2 mL, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (6.2 ± 1.4 vs. 9.3 ± 2.1 days, p < 0.001), and fewer overall complications (20% vs. 51.1%, relative risk 0.39, p = 0.002). SSIs (8.9% vs. 24.4%, RR 0.37, p = 0.047) and pulmonary complications (2.2% vs. 13.3%, RR 0.17, p = 0.048) were also significantly lower in the laparoscopic group. Conclusions In this single-center prospective cohort, LAPR was associated with fewer early postoperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stays than OAPR, despite longer operative time. These findings suggest that LAPR may be a reasonable option in appropriately selected patients, but confirmation in multicenter randomized studies with long-term oncologic outcomes is warranted.
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.