Open compared with laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision with central lymphadenectomy for colon cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Several studies report improved survival in colon cancer with use of extended lymphadenectomy techniques (ELTs), such as D3 lymphadenectomy or complete mesocolic excision. The noninferiority of laparoscopic versus open techniques has already been established in D2 resections. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of open and laparoscopic approaches for ELTs in colon cancer. METHOD: Major databases, including PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane library, were searched using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and relevant data were extracted. The Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa tools were used for critical appraisal and quality assessment. Meta-analysis with various subgroup analyses were undertaken, and clinical and statistical heterogeneity, along with publication bias, were also assessed. RESULTS: One randomized and seven case-control trials were included. All studies were found to be of low methodological quality with some external validity issues. There was no difference in short-term mortality [OR = 2.16 (95% CI: 0.73-6.41); P = 0.16], anastomotic leakage, ileus or deep-sited infection/abscess. There was a trend for longer operative time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -30.88 (95% CI: -62.38 to 0.61); P = 0.05] and shorter length of hospital stay [WMD = 2.29 (95% CI: -0.39 to 4.98); P = 0.09] with the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy had a lower wound-infection rate [OR = 2.87 (95% CI: 1.38-5.98); P = 0.005] compared with the relevant open group. No statistically significant difference was found in overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.69-1.06); P = 0.15], disease-free survival, local recurrence and distant metastases. CONCLUSION: Based on the current evidence, the laparoscopic technique appears to be at least as safe as the open technique when used in performing ELTs for colonic cancer, with similar morbidity and oncological outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".