ArticleAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2026
Comparison of Minimally Invasive Colectomy Between Intra- Versus Extra-Corporeal Anastomosis Technique (COMMIT Study): Mid-Term Analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterological surgery, 2026. 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.
- Comparison of Minimally Invasive Colectomy Between Intra- Versus Extra-Corporeal Anastomosis Technique (COMMIT Study): Short-Term Analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
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
Aim: The adoption of intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) in minimally invasive colectomy for colon cancer has increased; however, its mid-term oncological outcomes compared with those of extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) remain unclear. Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study analyzed patients who underwent minimally invasive curative colectomy for colon cancer between 2018 and 2022 from the Kyoto Colorectal Surgery Group database. Propensity score matching (1:4) was applied to balance patient, tumor, and surgical characteristics between IA and EA groups. Primary outcome was 2-year recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes included 2-year cumulative incidence of peritoneal, anastomotic, and distant recurrence, and postoperative complications. Results: Among 1904 eligible patients (IA, Conclusion: IA demonstrated a comparable risk of peritoneal and anastomotic recurrence and suggested a potential reduction in distant recurrence without an associated deterioration in 2-year RFS. These findings support IA as an oncologically reasonable option, even for advanced-stage tumors.
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.