Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25339823›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2014

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: current immediate clinical and oncological outcomes.

Sergio Eduardo Alonso Araujo, Victor Edmond Seid, Sidney Klajner

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. RoboticWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Robotic-World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2020
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sergio Eduardo Alonso AraujoSergio Eduardo Alonso Araujo, Victor Edmond Seid, Department of Gastroenterology, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, Sao Paulo (SP) 05403-000, Brazil.
Victor Edmond SeidSergio Eduardo Alonso Araujo, Victor Edmond Seid, Department of Gastroenterology, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, Sao Paulo (SP) 05403-000, Brazil.
Sidney KlajnerSergio Eduardo Alonso Araujo, Victor Edmond Seid, Department of Gastroenterology, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, Sao Paulo (SP) 05403-000, Brazil.
Universidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laparoscopic rectal surgery continues to be a challenging operation associated to a steep learning curve. Robotic surgical systems have dramatically changed minimally invasive surgery. Three-dimensional, magnified and stable view, articulated instruments, and reduction of physiologic tremors leading to superior dexterity and ergonomics. Therefore, robotic platforms could potentially address limitations of laparoscopic rectal surgery. It was aimed at reviewing current literature on short-term clinical and oncological (pathological) outcomes after robotic rectal cancer surgery in comparison with laparoscopic surgery. A systematic review was performed for the period 2002 to 2014. A total of 1776 patients with rectal cancer underwent minimally invasive robotic treatment in 32 studies. After robotic and laparoscopic approach to oncologic rectal surgery, respectively, mean operating time varied from 192-385 min, and from 158-297 min; mean estimated blood loss was between 33 and 283 mL, and between 127 and 300 mL; mean length of stay varied from 4-10 d; and from 6-15 d. Conversion after robotic rectal surgery varied from 0% to 9.4%, and from 0 to 22% after laparoscopy. There was no difference between robotic (0%-41.3%) and laparoscopic (5.5%-29.3%) surgery regarding morbidity and anastomotic complications (respectively, 0%-13.5%, and 0%-11.1%). Regarding immediate oncologic outcomes, respectively among robotic and laparoscopic cases, positive circumferential margins varied from 0% to 7.5%, and from 0% to 8.8%; the mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was between 10 and 20, and between 11 and 21; and the mean distal resection margin was from 0.8 to 4.7 cm, and from 1.9 to 4.5 cm. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is being undertaken by experienced surgeons. However, the quality of the assembled evidence does not support definite conclusions about most studies variables. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is associated to increased costs and operating time. It also seems to be associated to reduced conversion rates. Other short-term outcomes are comparable to conventional laparoscopy techniques, if not better. Ultimately, pathological data evaluation suggests that oncologic safety may be preserved after robotic total mesorectal excision. However, further studies are required to evaluate oncologic safety and functional results.

Indexed as

RoboticsBlood Loss, SurgicalDigestive System Surgical ProceduresHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRectal NeoplasmsRisk FactorsRobotic Surgical ProceduresTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeColorectal surgeryMinimally invasiveRectal neoplasmsRoboticsSurgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID25339823
PMCPMC4202365
OpenAlexW2039872550

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.