Laparoscopic vs. open resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the outcome after laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of all patients undergoing elective resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma between November 1992 and June 1999 at a university-affiliated hospital. These included 219 open (mean age, 68.3 years) and 98 laparoscopic (mean age, 70.3 years) resections. Data from converted cases (n = 12) were included in the laparoscopic group using the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Operative time, lymph node yield, resection margins and postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar between laparoscopic and open technique. Parenteral analgesic use was less in the laparoscopic group (laparoscopic, 2.7; open, 3.2 days; P = 0.021). Time to first flatus (laparoscopic, 1.8; open, 3 days; P < 0.0001) and first bowel movement (laparoscopic, 3.5; open, 4.9 days; P < 0.0001) was shorter in the laparoscopic group. Resumption of an oral liquid diet (laparoscopic, 2.1; open, 4 days; P < 0.0001) and solid diet (laparoscopic, 5.2; open, 7.1 days; P < 0.0001) was also quicker in the laparoscopic patients. Length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic patients (laparoscopic, 6.9; open, 10.9 days; P < 0.001). There were less minor complications in the laparoscopic group (laparoscopic, 11.2; open, 21.5 percent; P = 0.029) but no difference in major complications or perioperative mortality. Recurrence, disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups. No port site recurrences occurred in the laparoscopic group but there were three wound recurrences in the open group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer can be performed safely and effectively in tertiary centers. Earlier discharge from hospital, quicker resumption of oral feeds and less postoperative pain are clear advantages. No adverse effect on recurrence or survival was noted, but results of prospective, randomized trials, currently underway, are needed before laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer becomes the standard of practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".