Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18270772›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2008

Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial.

S H Baik, Y T Ko, C M Kang, W J Lee, N K Kim, S K Sohn, H S Chi, C H Cho

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01736072 (RObotic Versus LAparoscopic Resection for Rectal Cancer An International, Multicentre, Prospective, Randomised, Controlled, Unblinded, Parallel-group Trial of Robotic-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Treatment of Rectal Cancer.), which is not on this map. Cited by 126 papers, 27 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 27 pooled it
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01736072 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2011, after this paper: background citation

RObotic Versus LAparoscopic Resection for Rectal Cancer An International, Multicentre, Prospective, Randomised, Controlled, Unblinded, Parallel-group Trial of Robotic-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Treatment of Rectal Cancer.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, IrvineRan2011 to 2018Enrolled471ConditionsRectal CancerArmsStandard Laparoscopic Surgery, Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

126 citing papers in PubMed, 27 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 300 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

66 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S H BaikRobotic and Laparoscopic Surgery Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea. whitenoja@yumc.yonsei.ac.kr
Y T Ko
C M Kang
W J Lee
N K Kim
S K Sohn
H S Chi
C H Cho
Yonsei University · KRSeverance Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic colorectal resection has become popular. The recently developed da Vinci Surgical System promises to facilitate endoscopic surgery and overcome its disadvantages. This study therefore aimed to compare the short-term results between robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision (R-TSME) using the da Vinci Surgical System and conventional laparoscopic tumor-specific mesorectal excision (L-TSME) in rectal cancer patients.

methodsBetween April 2006 and February 2007, 36 patients were randomly assigned to receive R-TSME or L-TSME. During the study, 18 patients underwent robotic low anterior resection using the da Vinci Surgical System, and 18 patients had conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection. Patient characteristics, perioperative clinical results, complications, and pathologic details were compared between the two groups.

resultsThe patient characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. The mean operating time, hemoglobin change, and conversion rate were not significantly different between the groups. Complications were treated conservatively and did not require surgical intervention in the R-TSME group. The average length of stay was 6.9 +/- 1.3 days in the R-TSME group and 8.7 +/- 1.3 days in the L-TSME group (p < 0.001). The specimen quality of the R-TSME group was acceptable.

conclusionTumor-specific mesorectal excision was performed safely and effectively using the da Vinci Surgical System and the perioperative outcomes were acceptable.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRoboticsAdultAgedBack PainBlood Loss, SurgicalEdemaFemaleHumansLength of StayLymph Node ExcisionMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRectal Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID18270772
OpenAlexW2067827673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.