Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 522

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Long-term results of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection

Open access
Kuhry, Esther, Schwenk, Wolfgang, Gaupset, Robin, Romild, Ulla, Bonjer, H. Jaap·2008·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although minimally invasive surgery has been accepted for a variety of disorders, laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer is performed by few. Concern about oncological radicality and long term outcome has limited the adoption of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine long-term outcome after laparoscopically-assisted versus open surgery for non-metastasised colorectal cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane library, EMBASE, Pub med and Cancer Lit were searched for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing laparoscopically-assisted and open surgery for non-metastasised colorectal cancer were included. Studies that did not report any long-term outcomes were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the studies and extracted data. RevMan 4.2 was used for statistical analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-three randomised clinical trials (RCT) comparing laparoscopically-assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer were identified. Twelve of these trials, involving 3346 patients, reported long-term outcome and were included in the current analysis. No significant differences in the occurrence of incisional hernia, reoperations for incisional hernia or reoperations for adhesions were found between laparoscopically assisted and open surgery (2 RCT, 474 pts, 7.9% vs 10.9%;P = 0.32 and 2 RCT, 474 pts, 4.0% vs 2.8%; P = 0.42 and 1 RCT, 391 pts, 1.1% vs 2.5%;P = 0.30, respectively). Rates of recurrence at the site of the primary tumor were similar (colon cancer: 4 RCT, 938 pts, 5.2% vs 5.6%; OR (fixed) 0.84 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.52)(P = 0.57); rectal cancer: 4 RCT, 714 pts, 7.2% vs 7.7%; OR (fixed) 0.81 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.43) (P = 0.46). No differences in the occurrence of port-site/wound recurrences were observed (P=0.16). Similar cancer-related mortality was found after laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery ( colon cancer: 5 RCT, 1575 pts, 14.6% vs 16.4%; OR (fixed) 0.80 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.06) (P=0.15); rectal cancer: 3 RCT, 578 pts, 9.2% vs 10.0%; OR (fixed) 0.66 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.19) (P=0.16). Four studies were included in the meta-analyses on hazard ratios for tumour recurrence in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. No significant difference in recurrence rate was observed between laparoscopic and open surgery (hazard ratio for tumour recurrence in the laparoscopic group 0.92; 95% CI 0.76-1.13). No significant difference in tumour recurrence between laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer was observed (hazard ratio for tumour recurrence in the laparoscopic group 0.86; 95% CI 0.70-1.08). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection of carcinoma of the colon is associated with a long term outcome no different from that of open colectomy. Further studies are required to determine whether the incidence of incisional hernias and adhesions is affected by method of approach. Laparoscopic surgery for cancer of the upper rectum is feasible, but more randomised trials need to be conducted to assess long term outcome.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd003432.pub2

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 39 references

Cited by

See all 522

Metadata

Authors
Kuhry, E., Schwenk, W., Gaupset, R., Romild, U., & Bonjer, H. J.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-04-23
Volume
2012
Issue
5
Pages
CD003432-CD003432
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1525587965
Cited by
522
References
39
FWCI
14.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Long-term results of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd003432.pub2
The paper
Kuhry, E., Schwenk, W., Gaupset, R., Romild, U., & Bonjer, H. J. (2008). Long-term results of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003432.pub2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.