Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 388

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer

Open access
Lujan, J, Valero, G, Hernandez, Q, Sanchez, A, Frutos, M D, Parrilla, P·2009·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background: The laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer is controversial. This study compared surgical outcomes after laparoscopic and open approaches for mid and low rectal cancers. Methods: Some 204 patients with mid and low rectal adenocarcinomas were allocated randomly to open (103) or laparoscopic (101) surgery. The surgical team was the same for both procedures. Most patients had stage II or III disease, and received neoadjuvant therapy with oral capecitabine and 50–54 Gy external beam radiotherapy. Results: Sphincter-preserving surgery was performed in 78·6 and 76·2 per cent of patients in the open and laparoscopic groups respectively. Blood loss was significantly greater for open surgery (P < 0·001) and operating time was significantly greater for laparoscopic surgery (P = 0·020), and return to diet and hospital stay were longer for open surgery. Complication rates, and involvement of circumferential and radial margins were similar for both procedures, but the number of isolated lymph nodes was greater in the laparoscopic group (mean 13·63 versus 11·57; P = 0·026). There were no differences in local recurrence, disease-free or overall survival. Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has a similar complication rate to open surgery, with less blood loss, rapid intestinal recovery, shorter hospital stay, and no compromise of oncological outcomes. Registration number: NCT00782457 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

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/bjs.6662

Cites

19 of 19 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

Cited by

See all 388

Metadata

Authors
Lujan, J., Valero, G., Hernandez, Q., Sanchez, A., Frutos, M. D., & Parrilla, P.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2009-07-30
Volume
96
Issue
9
Pages
982-989
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2076791089
Cited by
388
References
19
FWCI
14.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

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.