ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Comparing the effects of laparoscopic radical surgery and traditional open surgery on short-term efficacy and long-term survival in patients with colorectal cancer.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
- Extended uses of robots in spine surgery beyond thoracolumbar pedicle screws: A narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
Aim: This study aimed to compare the impacts of laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS) on the short-term efficacy and long-term survival in patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: Sixty CRC patients who underwent LS at our hospital between January 2021 and January 2022 were enrolled as the LS group. Another 60 CRC patients who received OS during the same period at the same hospital were selected as the OS group. The study compared surgical parameters, postoperative recovery metrics, stress response indicators, inflammatory markers, immune function markers, the incidence of postoperative complications, quality of life assessments, and 3-year survival rates between the two cohorts. Results: The LS group exhibited a longer surgical duration but had shorter surgical incisions and less intraoperative blood loss compared to the OS group ( Conclusion: LS for CRC patients is highly effective, alleviating inflammatory and immune stress responses in patients, lowering the incidence of postoperative complications, improving the quality of life of patients, and having a long-term efficacy comparable to OS.
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.