ReviewFrontiers in oncology2025
Evaluating the safety and efficacy of SILS and SILS+1 port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal resection: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of RCTs.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Single-Incision Laparoscopy-First Strategy in Crohn's Disease: Risk Factors for Conversion and Surgical Outcomes.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As minimally invasive techniques evolve, reduced-port laparoscopic colorectal resection, including single-incision (SILS) and single-incision plus one (SILS+1) approaches, has gained increasing clinical traction. However, whether it offers definitive advantages over conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery remains contentious. This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RLS) for colorectal resection and validate the robustness of findings through trial sequential analysis (TSA). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase from database inception to March 21, 2025, to identify RCTs comparing RLS with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colorectal resection. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analyses were performed in RevMan 5.3, with TSA employed to control for random errors. Primary endpoints included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and postoperative pain. Results: Fourteen RCTs involving 1,713 patients were analyzed. Pooled data demonstrated no statistically significant differences between RLS and CLS in operative time (SMD: 0.29; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.64; Conclusion: RLS demonstrates comparable safety profiles and operative efficiency to conventional laparoscopic resection, and with its principal advantage being reduced incision length, this approach can serve as an alternative surgical option for patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.