The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Laparoscopic Resection in Rectal Cancer Patients: Outcome and Cost-Benefit Analysis
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic rectal resection on short-term postoperative morbidity and costs. METHODS: A total of 168 patients with rectal cancer were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 83) or open (n = 85) resection. Outcome parameters were: postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay, quality of life, long-term survival, and local recurrences. The mean follow-up period was 53.6 months. Cost-benefit analysis was based on hospital costs. RESULTS: Operative time was 53 minutes longer in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.0001). Postoperative morbidity rate was 28.9 percent in the laparoscopic vs. 40 percent in the open group (P = 0.18). The mean length of hospital stay was 10 (4.9) days in the laparoscopic group and 13.6 (10) days in the open group (P = 0.004). Local recurrence rate and five-year survival were similar in both groups; however, the limited number of patients does not allow firm conclusions. Quality of life was better in the laparoscopic group only in the first year after surgery (P < 0.0001). The additional charge in the laparoscopic group was $1,748 per patient randomized ($1,194 the result of surgical instruments and $554 the result of longer operative time). The saving in the laparoscopic group was $1,396 per patient randomized ($647 the result of shorter length of hospital stay and $749 the result of the lower cost of postoperative complications). The net balance resulted in $351 extra cost per patient randomly allocated to the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term postoperative morbidity was similar in the two groups. Laparoscopic resection reduced length of hospital stay, improved first-year quality of life, and slightly increased hospital costs.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A Comparison of Laparoscopically Assisted and Open Colectomy for Colon Cancer
(2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa032651 · Cited by 3,395
Guillou, P. J., Quirke, P., Thorpe, H., Walker, J., Jayne, D. G., Smith, A. M., Heath, R. M., & Brown, J. M. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66545-2 · Cited by 3,064
Lacy, A. M., García-Valdecasas, J. C., Delgado, S., Castells, A., Taurá, P., Piqué, J. M., & Visa, J. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)09290-5 · Cited by 2,441
Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial
Leung, K. L., Kwok, S. P., Lam, S. C., Lee, J. F., Yiu, R. Y., Ng, S. S., Lai, P. B., & Lau, W. Y. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)15947-3 · Cited by 888
Bozzetti, F., Braga, M., Gianotti, L., Gavazzi, C., & Mariani, L. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06578-3 · Cited by 494 · cited 1×
“Four trained members of the surgical staff who were not involved in the study registered postoperative complications according to a priori definition.(10) They also decided the day of hospital discharge.”
MethodSelf-citationLaparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: a randomized trial on short-term outcome.
Braga, M., Vignali, A., Gianotti, L. V., Zuliani, W., Radaelli, G., Gruarin, P., Dellabona, P., & Carlo, V. D. (2002) · PubMed · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000036269.60340.ae · Cited by 486
Self-citationLaparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Surgery: A Randomized Trial on Short-Term Outcome
Braga, M., Vignali, A., Gianotti, L., Zuliani, W., Radaelli, G., Gruarin, P., Dellabona, P., & Di Carlo, V. (2002) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-200212000-00008 · Cited by 430
Self-citationLaparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Aziz, O., Constantinides, V., Tekkis, P. P., Athanasiou, T., Purkayastha, S., Paraskeva, P., Darzi, A. W., & Heriot, A. G. (2006) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/aso.2006.05.045 · Cited by 392
King, P. M., Blazeby, J. M., Ewings, P., Franks, P. J., Longman, R. J., Kendrick, A. H., Kipling, R. M., & Kennedy, R. H. (2006) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.5216 · Cited by 356
Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision: A Consecutive Series of 100 Patients
Morino, M., Parini, U., Giraudo, G., Salval, M., Brachet Contul, R., & Garrone, C. (2003) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000055270.48242.d2 · Cited by 347
Cited by
Jeong, S.-Y., Park, J. W., Nam, B. H., Kim, S., Kang, S.-B., Lim, S.-B., Choi, H. S., Kim, D.-W., Chang, H. J., Kim, D. Y., et al. (2014) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70205-0 · Cited by 888
Adamina, M., Kehlet, H., Tomlinson, G. A., Senagore, A. J., & Delaney, C. P. (2011) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2010.11.003 · Cited by 555
Behrns, K. E. (2012) · Yearbook of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ysur.2011.11.001 · Cited by 426
Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer
Lujan, J., Valero, G., Hernandez, Q., Sanchez, A., Frutos, M. D., & Parrilla, P. (2009) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.6662 · Cited by 388
Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer
Breukink, S., Pierie, J.-P., & Wiggers, T. (2006) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005200.pub2 · Cited by 287
Metadata
- Authors
- Braga, M., Frasson, M., Vignali, A., Zuliani, W., Capretti, G., & Di Carlo, V.
- Venue
- Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
- Published
- 2007-04
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 464-471
- ISSN
- 0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1968040565
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 4.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Laparoscopic Resection in Rectal Cancer Patients: Outcome and Cost-Benefit Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10350-006-0798-5
- The paper
- Braga, M., Frasson, M., Vignali, A., Zuliani, W., Capretti, G., & Di Carlo, V. (2007). Laparoscopic Resection in Rectal Cancer Patients: Outcome and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-006-0798-5
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.
