ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2009
Robot-assisted laparoscopic cardiomyotomy.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2009. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRobot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is an expanding field of medicine. In endoscopic microsurgery particularly, difficult maneuvers such as intracorporeal hand-sewn anastomoses or a narrow operating field are ideal indications for use of an operation robot. PATIENTS AND
methodsSix patients, four men and two women, underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic cardiomyotomy for achalasia at a tertiary referral center with substantial expertise in robotic surgery. A detailed description of the operation technique is provided, together with a review of the literature.
resultsRobot-assisted laparoscopic cardiomyotomy was feasible without any particular problem and the postoperative course of all six patients was uneventful. The operation time was 236 (220-316) minutes, plus 38 (25-47) minutes for setup-time of the robot. At follow-up six months postoperatively, five of the six patients were free of significant dysphagia and all were free of reflux symptoms. DISCUSSION: There are several published reports, series and trials on robot-assisted laparoscopic cardiomyotomy. The general conclusion is that in experienced hands this operation is easy to perform, with a significantly lower rate of mucosal perforations, but that overall costs are higher, including a longer operation time during the learning curve. The avoidance of mucosal lacerations and their possible consequences has to be weighed against higher overall costs.
conclusionLaparoscopic cardiomyotomy is the first standard laparoscopic operation where a clear advantage for use of an operation robot has been proven. Thus, wherever an operation robot is available it should be used for this procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.