SynthesisChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Evidence for the extent and oncological benefits of lymphadenectomy in colon and rectal cancer : A narrative review based on meta-analyses].
Synthesis in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLymphadenectomy for rectal cancer is clearly defined by total mesorectal excision (TME). The analogous surgical strategy for the colon, the complete mesocolic excision (CME), follows the same principles of dissection in embryologically predefined planes.
methodThis narrative review initially identified key issues related to lymphadenectomy of rectal and colon cancer. The subsequent search was based on PubMed and focused on meta-analyses. The endpoints for rectal cancer were the benefit of high tie versus low tie and the indications for lateral pelvic lymphadenectomy. For colon cancer the evidence for CME, for the longitudinal extent of resection, for the dissection of infrapyloric and gastroepiploic lymph nodes, for the number of lymph nodes and for the sentinel lymph node technique were used as endpoints.
resultsAn oncological benefit of the high tie cannot be derived from the current data. Lateral pelvic lymphadenectomy should only be selectively performed after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in cases of remaining lymph nodes with suspected metastases. In most studies CME proved to be oncologically superior, especially in stage III. The longitudinal extent of resection should be at least 10 cm in both directions if the principles of CME are observed. Infrapyloric and gastroepiploic lymph node involvement is to be expected in 0.7-22% of cases, depending on patient selection, which justifies dissection, particularly in carcinomas of both flexure and the transverse colon. The minimum number of lymph nodes to be removed cannot be clearly derived from the available studies. Precisely performed CME and an optimal pathological work-up are important. The sentinel lymph node technique cannot currently be used as a criterion for limiting the extent of resection.
conclusionBoth TME and CME are reliable standards for the lymphadenectomy in colorectal carcinomas. A lymphadenectomy that goes beyond this is reserved for selected cases and is partly the subject of currently ongoing studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39792247What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.