Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23995270›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of colorectal disease2014

Robotic colorectal surgery: summary of the current evidence.

E H Aly

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of colorectal disease, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Robotic Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2021
    Review
  15. Safety with Innovation in Colon and Rectal Robotic Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2021
    Review
  16. Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

E H AlyLaparoscopic Colorectal Surgery and Training Unit, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Forresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZN, UK, emad.aly@nhs.net.
University of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral studies have confirmed that laparoscopic colorectal surgery results in improved early post-operative outcomes. Nevertheless, conventional laparoscopic approach and instruments have several limitations. Robotic approach could potentially address of many of these limitations.

objectivesThis review aims to present a summary of the current evidence on the role of robotic colorectal surgery.

methodsA comprehensive search of electronic databases (Pubmed, Science Direct and Google scholar) using the key words "rectal surgery", "laparoscopic", "colonic" and "robotic." Evidence from these data was critically analysed and summarised to produce this article.

resultsRobotic colorectal surgery is both safe and feasible. However, it has no clear advantages over standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery in terms of early postoperative outcomes or complications profile. It has shorter learning curve but increased operative time and cost. It could offer potential advantage in resection of rectal cancer as it has a lower conversion rates even in obese individuals, distal rectal tumours and patients who had preoperative chemoradiotherpy. There is also a trend towards better outcome in anastomotic leak rates, circumferential margin positivity and perseveration of autonomic function, but there was no clear statistical significance to support this from the currently available data.

conclusionThe use of robotic approach seems to be capable of addressing most of the shortcomings of the standard laparoscopic surgery. The technique has proved its safety profile in both colonic and rectal surgery. However, the cost involved may restrict its use to patients with challenging rectal cancer and in specialist centres.

Indexed as

Colorectal SurgeryRoboticsClinical Trials as TopicHumansLearning CurveOrgan Sparing TreatmentsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID23995270
OpenAlexW2038371950

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.