Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25489216›Full record

SynthesisJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons

Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Becky B Trinh, Nicole R Jackson, Adam T Hauch, Tian Hu, Emad Kandil

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Early Single-Center Experience of DaVinciJournal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023
    Article
  15. Surgical Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Rhode Island medical journal (2013) · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Robotic colorectal surgery and ergonomics.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022
    Review
  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

5 authors.

Becky B TrinhDepartment of Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Nicole R JacksonDepartment of Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Adam T HauchDepartment of Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Tian HuDepartment of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Emad KandilDepartment of Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic approaches have become increasingly used for colorectal surgery. The aim of this study is to examine the safety and efficacy of robotic colorectal procedures in an adult population. STUDY

designA systematic review of articles in both PubMed and Embase comparing laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures was performed. Clinical trials and observational studies in an adult population were included. Approaches were evaluated in terms of operative time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, number of lymph nodes harvested, and perioperative complications. Mean net differences and odds ratios were calculated to examine treatment effect of each group.

resultsTwo hundred eighteen articles were identified, and 17 met the inclusion criteria, representing 4,342 patients: 920 robotic and 3,422 in the laparoscopic group. Operative time for the robotic approach was 38.849 minutes longer (95% confidence interval: 17.944 to 59.755). The robotic group had lower estimated blood loss (14.17 mL; 95% confidence interval: -27.63 to -1.60), and patients were 1.78 times more likely to be converted to an open procedure (95% confidence interval: 1.24 to 2.55). There was no difference between groups with respect to number of lymph nodes harvested, length of stay, readmission rate, or perioperative complication rate.

conclusionsThe robotic approach to colorectal surgery is as safe and efficacious as conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, it is associated with longer operative time and an increased rate of conversion to laparotomy. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted to examine the cost-effectiveness of robotic colorectal surgery before it can be adopted as the new standard of care.

Indexed as

Colorectal SurgeryHumansLaparoscopyOperative TimeRoboticsColorectal surgeryLaparoscopicRobotic

Identifiers

PMID25489216
PMCPMC4254480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.