ReviewTechniques in coloproctology2026
The clinical effect and oncological results of preserving inferior mesenteric artery during laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision for patients with descending colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Review in Techniques in coloproctology, 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
backgroundThe management of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) in descending colon cancer (SCC) surgery remains controversial. The aim of this research is to compare the effect of preserving the IMA on early gastrointestinal function (GIF) recovery and oncological results in laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) for SCC.
methodsThis study included 81 patients with SCC who had CME at Xiamen University Attached Zhongshan Hospital between January 2012 and August 2021. A total of 55 patients were assigned to the IMA preservation (IMA-P) group, while 26 patients were included in the IMA ligation (IMA-L) group. We took early GIF recovery and mid-term survival outcomes as the primary endpoints, and surgical results and postoperative complications as the secondary endpoints. A 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) methodology was utilized to minimize biases.
resultsAfter PSM, the two groups had 22 patients each. The preliminary study results showed no significant distinctions in the two groups' early GIF recovery (p = 0.767) or survival results. The estimated 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 81.0% in the IMA-P group but 75.8% in the IMA-L group (p = 0.615). The IMA-P group's 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 63.6%, while the IMA-L group's was 72.7% (p = 0.619). However, the IMA-P group demonstrated a lower risk of blood loss (70 ml versus 15 ml, p = 0.048) and incidence of postoperative complications (p = 0.021).
conclusionsCompared with IMA-L, IMA-P had substantially lower risk of blood loss and postoperative complications. In cases where it is technically feasible, IMA-P may be a safer option in CME 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.