The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Laparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Surgery: A Randomized Trial on Short-Term Outcome
Abstract
Objective The primary endpoint was to compare the impact of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery on 30-day postoperative morbidity. Lymphocyte proliferation to mitogens and gut oxygen tension were surrogate endpoints. Summary Background Data Evidence-based proof of the effect of laparoscopic colorectal surgery on immunometabolic response and clinically relevant outcome variables is scanty. Further randomized trials are desirable before proposing laparoscopy as a superior technique. Methods Two hundred sixty-nine patients with colorectal disease were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 136) or open (n = 133) colorectal resection. Four trained members of the surgical staff who were not involved in the study registered postoperative complications. Lymphocyte proliferation to Candida albicans and phytohemagglutinin was evaluated before and 3 and 15 days after surgery. Operative gut oxygen tension was monitored continuously by a polarographic microprobe. Results In the laparoscopic group the conversion rate was 5.1%. The overall morbidity rate was 20.6% in the laparoscopic group and 38.3% in the open group. Postoperative infections occurred in 15 of the 136 patients in the laparoscopic group and 31 of the 133 patients in the open group. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.4 ± 2.9 days in the laparoscopic group and 12.5 ± 4.1 days in the open group. On postoperative day 3, lymphocyte proliferation was impaired in both groups. Fifteen days after surgery, the proliferation index returned to baseline values only in the laparoscopic group. Intraoperative gut oxygen tension was higher in the laparoscopic than in the open group. Conclusions Laparoscopic colorectal surgery resulted in a significant reduction of 30-day postoperative morbidity. Lymphocyte proliferation and gut oxygen tension were better preserved in the laparoscopic group than in the open group.
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
Moher, D. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.1987 · Cited by 2,545
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.(14) They also decided the first day of solid food recovery and the day of hospital discharge.”
MethodSelf-citation
Cited by
Long-term results of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection
Kuhry, E., Schwenk, W., Gaupset, R., Romild, U., & Bonjer, H. J. (2008) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003432.pub2 · Cited by 522
Functional Recovery After Open Versus Laparoscopic Colonic Resection: A Randomized, Blinded Study
Basse, L., Jakobsen, D. H., Bardram, L., Billesbølle, P., Lund, C., Mogensen, T., Rosenberg, J., & Kehlet, H. (2005) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000154149.85506.36 · Cited by 438
Metadata
- Authors
- Braga, M., Vignali, A., Gianotti, L., Zuliani, W., Radaelli, G., Gruarin, P., Dellabona, P., & Di Carlo, V.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 236
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 759-767
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4233683977
- Cited by
- 430
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.54
- 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 Versus Open Colorectal Surgery: A Randomized Trial on Short-Term Outcome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000658-200212000-00008
- The paper
- Braga, M., Vignali, A., Gianotti, L., Zuliani, W., Radaelli, G., Gruarin, P., Dellabona, P., & Di Carlo, V. (2002). Laparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Surgery: A Randomized Trial on Short-Term Outcome. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200212000-00008
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.