Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20607559›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2011

Robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched study.

Jeong-Heum Baek, Carlos Pastor, Alessio Pigazzi

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative 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 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 71 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 10 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
NCT04015804 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

European Ambispective Cohort of Rectal Cancer Patient Who Underwent Robotic Low Anterior Resection

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstitut du Cancer de Montpellier - Val d'AurelleRan2015 to 2025Enrolled833ConditionsRectum CancerArmsClinical database
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. 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
  9. Pooled it
  10. Meta-analysis of Robot-assistedIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
    Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Robotic Surgery in Crohn's Disease.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2021
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

11 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

3 authors.

Jeong-Heum BaekDepartment of Surgery, Gachon University of Medicine and Science, Gil Medical Center, 1198 Guwol-dong, Namdong-gu, Incheon, 405-760, Korea.
Carlos Pastor
Alessio Pigazzi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic total mesorectal excision (RTME), a novel approach for the treatment of rectal cancer, has been shown in previous studies to be safe and effective. However, the results of this approach compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) have not been reported in terms of clinical outcome and oncologic data. This study compared early outcomes for rectal cancer between two groups.

methodsBetween April 2003 and March 2009, 82 patients from a prospectively maintained database were enrolled in a case-matched study. The patients were matched for gender, age, body mass index (BMI), and type of operative procedure.

resultsNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was performed for 33 RTME patients (80.5%) and 18 LTME patients (43.9%) (p=0.001). The mean operative time was 296 min for RTME and 315 min for LTME (p=0.357). The number of conversions were 3 (7.3%) for RTME and 9 (22%) for LTME (p=0.12). The anastomotic leak rate after surgery did not differ between RTME (n=3, 8.6%) and LTME (n=1, 2.9%) (p=0.62). The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 13.1 with RTME and 16.2 with LTME (p=0.07), and negative distal resection margins (DRMs) were noted in all surgical specimens. Positive circumferential resections (CRMs) were identified in 2.4% of the RTME cases and 4.9% of the LTME cases. No difference was noted in lengths of the DRMs, times until a liquid diet, or postoperative hospital stays. The total hospitalization costs were higher in the RTME group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. There was no operative mortality or port-site recurrence in either group.

conclusionFor rectal cancer, RTME may be as feasible and safe as LTME in terms of technical and oncologic issues. Further prospective randomized trials are necessary for conclusions to be drawn concerning definite oncologic outcomes of robotic procedures for rectal cancer.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnastomosis, SurgicalCase-Control StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntestinal MucosaLaparotomyMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm StagingPostoperative Complications

Identifiers

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.