ReviewCureus2026
Postoperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Resection for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Observational Cohorts.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is a major global health burden, with surgical resection remaining the cornerstone of curative treatment for non-metastatic disease. Although laparoscopic colorectal surgery is widely adopted in many settings, its short-term postoperative outcomes relative to open surgery in routine clinical practice remain variably reported. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare short-term postoperative outcomes following laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection for colorectal cancer using observational cohort evidence. A systematic search of PubMed/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Scopus, Web of Science, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and African Journals OnLine (AJOL) was conducted for English-language comparative observational studies published between January 2013 and June 2025, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligible studies included adult patients undergoing laparoscopic or open colorectal cancer resection. Primary outcomes were overall postoperative morbidity, surgical site infection, length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, and operative time. Risk of bias was assessed using standardized criteria, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed when outcomes were reported in at least two methodologically comparable studies; otherwise, findings were synthesized narratively. Six observational studies encompassing 2,295 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic resection was associated with lower postoperative morbidity, fewer surgical site infections, reduced blood loss, and shorter hospital stays, while operative time was longer. Some pooled comparisons reached statistical significance, whereas others did not. Moderate heterogeneity was observed across outcomes, likely reflecting differences in study design, patient selection, and institutional practice. Sensitivity analyses did not materially alter the direction of findings. Overall, this systematic review suggests that laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with favorable short-term postoperative outcomes in observational settings, without a clear signal of increased perioperative harm. However, the certainty of evidence is moderate due to the observational nature of the data and between-study heterogeneity, and results should be interpreted accordingly.
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.