Caution is needed in interpreting the results of comparative studies regarding oncological operations by minimally invasive versus laparotomic access
ABSTRACT We aim to alert the difference between groups while comparing studies of abdominal oncological operations performed either by minimally invasive or laparotomic approaches and potential conflicts of interest in presenting or interpreting the results. Considering the large volume of scientifi...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões
|
| Series: | Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-69912020000100702&tlng=pt |
| _version_ | 1819004255007145984 |
|---|---|
| author | PEDRO RICARDO DE OLIVEIRA FERNANDES FRANCISCO AMÉRICO FERNANDES NETO DURVAL RENATO WOHNRATH VINÍCIUS DE LIMA VAZQUEZ |
| author_facet | PEDRO RICARDO DE OLIVEIRA FERNANDES FRANCISCO AMÉRICO FERNANDES NETO DURVAL RENATO WOHNRATH VINÍCIUS DE LIMA VAZQUEZ |
| author_sort | PEDRO RICARDO DE OLIVEIRA FERNANDES |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | ABSTRACT We aim to alert the difference between groups while comparing studies of abdominal oncological operations performed either by minimally invasive or laparotomic approaches and potential conflicts of interest in presenting or interpreting the results. Considering the large volume of scientific articles that are published, there is a need to consider the quality of the scientific production that leads to clinical decision making. In this regards, it is important to take into account the choice of the surgical access route. Randomized, controlled clinical trials are the standard for comparing the effectiveness between these interventions. Although some studies indicate advantages in minimally invasive access, caution is needed when interpreting these findings. There is no detailed observation in each of the comparative study about the real limitations and potential indications for minimally invasive procedures, such as the indications for selected and less advanced cases, in less complex cavities, as well as its elective characteristic. Several abdominal oncological operations via laparotomy would not be plausible to be completely performed through a minimally invasive access. These cases should be carefully selected and excluded from the comparative group. The comparison should be carried out, in a balanced way, with a group that could also have undergone a minimally invasive access, avoiding bias in selecting those cases of minor complexity, placed in the minimally invasive group. It is not a question of criticizing the minimally invasive technologies, but of respecting the surgeon’s clinical decision regarding the most convenient method, revalidating the well-performed traditional laparotomy route, which has been unfairly criticized or downplayed by many people. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-20T23:33:59Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-22af40507b6e45cc896b28b45d346ab3 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1809-4546 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-20T23:33:59Z |
| publisher | Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões |
| spelling | doaj.art-22af40507b6e45cc896b28b45d346ab32022-12-21T19:23:14ZengColégio Brasileiro de CirurgiõesRevista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões1809-454610.1590/0100-6991e-20202458Caution is needed in interpreting the results of comparative studies regarding oncological operations by minimally invasive versus laparotomic accessPEDRO RICARDO DE OLIVEIRA FERNANDESFRANCISCO AMÉRICO FERNANDES NETODURVAL RENATO WOHNRATHVINÍCIUS DE LIMA VAZQUEZABSTRACT We aim to alert the difference between groups while comparing studies of abdominal oncological operations performed either by minimally invasive or laparotomic approaches and potential conflicts of interest in presenting or interpreting the results. Considering the large volume of scientific articles that are published, there is a need to consider the quality of the scientific production that leads to clinical decision making. In this regards, it is important to take into account the choice of the surgical access route. Randomized, controlled clinical trials are the standard for comparing the effectiveness between these interventions. Although some studies indicate advantages in minimally invasive access, caution is needed when interpreting these findings. There is no detailed observation in each of the comparative study about the real limitations and potential indications for minimally invasive procedures, such as the indications for selected and less advanced cases, in less complex cavities, as well as its elective characteristic. Several abdominal oncological operations via laparotomy would not be plausible to be completely performed through a minimally invasive access. These cases should be carefully selected and excluded from the comparative group. The comparison should be carried out, in a balanced way, with a group that could also have undergone a minimally invasive access, avoiding bias in selecting those cases of minor complexity, placed in the minimally invasive group. It is not a question of criticizing the minimally invasive technologies, but of respecting the surgeon’s clinical decision regarding the most convenient method, revalidating the well-performed traditional laparotomy route, which has been unfairly criticized or downplayed by many people.http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-69912020000100702&tlng=ptSurgical OncologySelection BiasLaparoscopyConversion to Open Surgery |
| spellingShingle | PEDRO RICARDO DE OLIVEIRA FERNANDES FRANCISCO AMÉRICO FERNANDES NETO DURVAL RENATO WOHNRATH VINÍCIUS DE LIMA VAZQUEZ Caution is needed in interpreting the results of comparative studies regarding oncological operations by minimally invasive versus laparotomic access Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões Surgical Oncology Selection Bias Laparoscopy Conversion to Open Surgery |
| title | Caution is needed in interpreting the results of comparative studies regarding oncological operations by minimally invasive versus laparotomic access |
| title_full | Caution is needed in interpreting the results of comparative studies regarding oncological operations by minimally invasive versus laparotomic access |
| title_fullStr | Caution is needed in interpreting the results of comparative studies regarding oncological operations by minimally invasive versus laparotomic access |
| title_full_unstemmed | Caution is needed in interpreting the results of comparative studies regarding oncological operations by minimally invasive versus laparotomic access |
| title_short | Caution is needed in interpreting the results of comparative studies regarding oncological operations by minimally invasive versus laparotomic access |
| title_sort | caution is needed in interpreting the results of comparative studies regarding oncological operations by minimally invasive versus laparotomic access |
| topic | Surgical Oncology Selection Bias Laparoscopy Conversion to Open Surgery |
| url | http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-69912020000100702&tlng=pt |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT pedroricardodeoliveirafernandes cautionisneededininterpretingtheresultsofcomparativestudiesregardingoncologicaloperationsbyminimallyinvasiveversuslaparotomicaccess AT franciscoamericofernandesneto cautionisneededininterpretingtheresultsofcomparativestudiesregardingoncologicaloperationsbyminimallyinvasiveversuslaparotomicaccess AT durvalrenatowohnrath cautionisneededininterpretingtheresultsofcomparativestudiesregardingoncologicaloperationsbyminimallyinvasiveversuslaparotomicaccess AT viniciusdelimavazquez cautionisneededininterpretingtheresultsofcomparativestudiesregardingoncologicaloperationsbyminimallyinvasiveversuslaparotomicaccess |