ArticleWideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques2014
Beginning robotic assisted colorectal surgery - it's harder than it looks!
Article in Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Short-term and long-term efficacy in robot-assisted treatment for mid and low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Pooled it
- Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2020Article
- Robotic colorectal surgery: previous laparoscopic colorectal experience is not essential.Journal of robotic surgery · 2018Article
- A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing conventional Intuitive® procedure card recommended port placement with the modified Indian (Manipal) technique.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLaparoscopy has been introduced into the field of colorectal surgery with the aim of reducing morbidity. One of the major barriers to overcome is the steep learning curve. Robotic surgery offers substantial advantages over traditional laparoscopy, which make the whole procedure more user friendly.
aimTo present our initial experiences with robotic assisted colorectal surgery. MATERIAL AND
methodsThirty-five patients with colorectal cancer underwent robotic assisted procedures between 2011 and 2013.
resultsIn total we performed 16 low anterior resections, 14 right colectomies, 3 abdominosacral resections and 2 left colectomies. There were 22 males and 13 females. The mean operative time was 315 ±65 min for a low anterior resection. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.4 ±1 days. There were 4 conversions to open procedures, 2 anastomotic leaks, and 1 colovaginal fistula. The mean lymph node yield was 12.7 ±4.3. The resection margin was negative in all but 1 patient.
conclusionsWe agree with the opinion that robotic surgery brings many advantages in pelvic dissections. In order to facilitate safe acquisition of robotic total mesorectal excision skills, surgeons should begin with female patients, and less advanced rectal cancer. In some instances robotic assistance can be helpful in right colectomies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.