Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23564216›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2013

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes.

Wissam J Halabi, Celeste Y Kang, Mehraneh D Jafari, Vinh Q Nguyen, Joseph C Carmichael, Steven Mills, Michael J Stamos, Alessio Pigazzi

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

Article in World journal of surgery, 2013. 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 87 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 9 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 map

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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 9 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. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Improved 5-year survival with robot-assisted resection for locally advanced rectal cancer compared to laparoscopic and open surgery: A real-world cohort study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 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.

Wissam J HalabiDepartment of Surgery, University of California Irvine, Irvine School of Medicine, 333 City Blvd West, Suite 850, Orange, CA, 92868, USA, wissamhalabi@gmail.com.
Celeste Y Kang
Mehraneh D Jafari
Vinh Q Nguyen
Joseph C Carmichael
Steven Mills
Michael J Stamos
Alessio Pigazzi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is becoming increasingly popular, data comparing its outcomes to other established techniques remain limited to small case series. Moreover, there are no large studies evaluating the trends of RACS at the national level.

methodsThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009-2010 was retrospectively reviewed for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal procedures performed for cancer, benign polyps, and diverticular disease. Trends in different settings, indications, and demographics were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare selected outcomes between RACS and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

resultsAn estimated 128,288 colorectal procedures were performed through minimally invasive techniques over the study period, and RACS was used in 2.78 % of cases. From 2009 to 2010, the use of robotics increased in all hospital settings but was still more common in large, urban, and teaching hospitals. Rectal cancer was the most common indication for RACS, with a tendency toward its selective use in male patients. On multivariate analysis, robotic surgery was associated with higher hospital charges in colonic ($11,601.39; 95 % CI 6,921.82-16,280.97) and rectal cases ($12,964.90; 95 % CI 6,534.79-19,395.01), and higher rates of postoperative bleeding in colonic cases (OR = 2.15; 95 % CI 1.27- 3.65). RACS was similar to CLS with respect to length of hospital stay, morbidity, anastomotic leak, and ileus. Conversion to open surgery was significantly lower in robotic colonic and rectal procedures (0.41; 95 % CI 0.25-0.67) and (0.10; 95 % CI 0.06-0.16), respectively.

conclusionsThe use of RACS is still limited in the United States. However, its use increased over the study period despite higher associated charges and no real advantages over laparoscopy in terms of outcome. The one advantage is lower conversion rates.

Indexed as

AgedColectomyColonColonic DiseasesConversion to Open SurgeryDatabases, FactualFemaleHospital ChargesHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPostoperative ComplicationsRectal DiseasesRectum

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.