Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20552367›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2011

S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer.

Jun Seok Park, Gyu-Seog Choi, Kyoung Hoon Lim, You Seok Jang, Soo Han Jun

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03765411 (Safe Surgery in the Elderly), which is not on this map. Cited by 100 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03765411 completednot on this mapstarted 2013, after this paper: background citation

Safe Surgery in the Elderly: A Review of Outcomes Following Robotic Proctectomy From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a Retrospective Cross Sectional Cohort Study. Cross-Sectional Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorTripler Army Medical CenterRan2013 to 2017Enrolled6,740ConditionsRectal CancerArmsProctectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

100 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs.International journal of colorectal disease · 2016
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2015
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Meta-analysis of Robot-assistedIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
    Pooled it
  13. Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

40 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

5 authors.

Jun Seok ParkDepartment of Surgery, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, 50 Samduck-dong 2ga Jung-gu, Daegu, 700-721, Korea.
Gyu-Seog Choi
Kyoung Hoon Lim
You Seok Jang
Soo Han Jun

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, robot-assisted surgery using the da Vinci System® has been proposed as an alternative to traditional open or laparoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted rectal resection for cancer.

methodsTwo hundred sixty-three patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative resection between 2007 and 2009 were included. Patients were classified into an open surgery group (OS, n = 88), a laparoscopic surgery group (LAP, n = 123), and a robot-assisted group (RAP, n = 52). Data analyzed include operating time, length of recovery, methods of specimen extraction, quality of total mesorectal excision, and morbidity.

resultsThe mean operating time was 233.8 ± 59.2 min for the OS group, 158.1 ± 49.2 min for the LAP group, and 232.6 ± 52.4 min for the RAP group (p < 0.001). Patients from the LAP and RAP groups recovered significantly faster than did those from the OS group (p < 0.05). The proportion of operations performed through a natural orifice (intracorporeal anastomosis with transanal or transvaginal retrieval of specimens) was significantly higher in the RAP group (p < 0.001). The specimen quality--with a distal resection margin, harvested lymph nodes, and circumferential margin--did not differ among the three groups. The overall complication rates were 20.5, 12.2, and 19.2% in the OS, LAP, and RAP groups, respectively (p = 0.229).

conclusionsRAP and LAP reproduce the equivalent short-term results of standard OS while providing the advantages of minimal access. For the experienced laparoscopic colorectal oncologist, use of the da Vinci robot resulted in no significant short-term clinical benefit over the conventional laparoscopic approach.

Indexed as

RoboticsAgedAnastomotic LeakColectomyFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLaparotomyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PainProspective StudiesRecovery of Function

Identifiers

PMID20552367

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.