ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2026
Two-port
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the current laparoscopic surgery practice of colorectal cancer (CRC), the four-port technique is more traumatic, whereas the single-port surgery is associated with technical difficulty and a limited field of view. Thus, the two-port technique, which is less traumatic and more feasible, becomes increasingly significant in clinical practice.
aimTo compare the clinical effects of two-port and four-port laparoscopic techniques for CRC treatment.
methodsIn the review of the medical records of patients with CRC from March 2022 to March 2025, 80 cases of two-port laparoscopic radical resection (two-port group) and 70 cases of four-port laparoscopic resection (four-port group) were identified for direct surgical comparison. These groups were evaluated and compared for surgical indicators (surgical duration, total intraoperative hemorrhage, and total length of incision), postoperative recovery (time to first flatus/ambulation, and total hospitalization duration), postoperative complications (ileus, anastomotic fistula, surgical site infection, bleeding, uroschesis, and intraperitoneal abscess), gastrointestinal function (gastrin and motilin), oncological indices (carcinoembryonic antigen, cytokeratin 19 fragment antigen 21-1, and carbohydrate antigen 125), and humoral immunity [immunoglobulin (Ig) A/G/M].
resultsThe two-port and four-port groups were comparable in terms of operation time and total intraoperative bleeding. However, the two-port group showed lower values with respect to the total incision length, time to flatus/ambulation, hospitalization time, and overall complications. Gastrin and motilin levels were reduced from baseline in the two-port group but were still higher than those in the four-port group. Carcinoembryonic antigen, cytokeratin 19 fragment antigen 21-1, and carbohydrate antigen 125 levels were lower, whereas IgA, IgG, and IgM values were higher postoperatively in the two-port group than those in the four-port group.
conclusionCompared with patients with CRC who underwent four-port laparoscopic surgery, those who underwent two-port laparoscopic resection recovered faster and were fairly safe. In addition, the gastrointestinal hormone disturbance was relatively mild, the serum tumor markers were significantly reduced, and the humoral immune response was enhanced.
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.