Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23708725›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2013

Robotic versus laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis with or without intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer.

Se Jin Baek, Sami Al-Asari, Duck Hyoun Jeong, Hyuk Hur, Byung Soh Min, Seung Hyuk Baik, Nam Kyu Kim

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 16 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 16 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. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. 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
  15. Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  16. Meta-analysis of Robot-assistedIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
    Pooled it
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Se Jin BaekDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 250 Seongsan-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-527, South Korea.
Sami Al-Asari
Duck Hyoun Jeong
Hyuk Hur
Byung Soh Min
Seung Hyuk Baik
Nam Kyu Kim

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic surgery is increasingly used in the field of rectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection (uLAR) and coloanal anastomosis (CAA). Between January 2007 and December 2010, a retrospective chart review was performed for all patients with low rectal cancer who underwent curative uLAR and CAA with or without intersphincteric resection using either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach. The study excluded patients with tumors invading the levator ani or external sphincter, patients with T4 cancers invading the prostate or vagina, and patients for whom an open approach was used. Patients' short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated. This study enrolled 84 consecutive patients (47 in the robotic group and 37 in the laparoscopic group). The patient characteristics and operative data did not differ significantly between the groups except for the rate of conversion to open surgery (robot, 2.1 % vs laparoscopy, 16.2 %; p = 0.02). The postoperative outcomes also were similar in the two groups, but the hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (robot, 9 days vs laparoscopy, 11 days; p = 0.011). No postoperative mortality occurred. The median follow-up period was 31.5 months. No difference was shown in local recurrence, 3-year overall survival, or disease-free survival between the two groups. Robotic uLAR and CAA with or without ISR is a safe and feasible surgical approach with a lower conversion rate, a shorter hospital stay, and similar oncologic outcomes compared with a laparoscopic approach. Further prospective and case-control cohort studies with longer follow-up periods are required.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRoboticsAdenocarcinomaAnal CanalAnastomosis, SurgicalColonoscopyConversion to Open SurgeryDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLength of StayLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, Local

Identifiers

PMID23708725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.