Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25708682›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2015

Robotic transanal surgery for local excision of rectal neoplasia, transanal total mesorectal excision, and repair of complex fistulae: clinical experience with the first 18 cases at a single institution.

S Atallah, B Martin-Perez, E Parra-Davila, T deBeche-Adams, G Nassif, M Albert, S Larach

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Robotic surgery (R-TAMIS): a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Robotic Transanal Surgery for Rectal Cancer.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2021
    Review
  9. Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision: Is the future now?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Future Directions.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Future of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2016
    Review
  19. Rectourethral Fistula Management.Current urology reports · 2016
    Review
  20. Transanal Approach to Rectal Polyps and Cancer.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S AtallahFlorida Hospital, Winter Park, FL, USA, atallah@post.harvard.edu.
B Martin-Perez
E Parra-Davila
T deBeche-Adams
G Nassif
M Albert
S Larach
AdventHealth Orlando · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic transanal surgery represents a natural evolution of transanal minimally invasive surgery. This new approach to rectal surgery provides the ability to perform local excision of rectal neoplasia with precision. Robotic transanal surgery can also be used to perform more advanced procedures including repair of complex fistulae and transanal total mesorectal excision.

methodsData from patients who underwent transanal robotic surgery over a 33-month period were retrospectively reviewed. Patients underwent three types of procedures using this approach: (a) local excision of rectal neoplasia, (b) transanal total mesorectal excision, and (c) closure of complex fistulae, such as rectourethral fistulae.

resultsEighteen patients underwent robotic transanal surgery during the 33-month study period. Of these, nine patients underwent local excision of rectal neoplasia; four patients underwent transanal total mesorectal excision; four patients underwent repair of rectourethral fistulae; and one patient underwent repair of an anastomotic fistula. Of the patients undergoing robotic transanal surgery for local excision, 6/9 were resections of benign neoplasia, while 3/9 were resections for invasive adenocarcinoma. There was no fragmentation (0/9) noted on any of the locally excised specimens, while one patient (1/9) had a positive lateral margin. During the mean follow-up of 11.4 months, no recurrence was detected. Four patients underwent robotic-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision for curative intent resection of rectal cancer confined to the distal rectum. Mesorectal quality was graded as complete or near complete, and an R0 resection was performed in all four cases. Other transanal robotic procedures performed were the repair of rectourethral fistulae (n = 3) and anastomotic fistula (n = 1). This approach was met with limited success, and only half of the rectourethral fistulae were closed.

conclusionsRobotic transanal surgery for local excision, transanal total mesorectal excision, and repair of fistulae is feasible, although these new approaches represent a work-in-progress. Improvement in platform design will likely facilitate the ability to perform more complex procedures. Further research with robotic transanal approaches is necessary to determine whether or not this approach can provide patients with significant benefit.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnal CanalBiopsyDigestive System Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresRectal FistulaRectal NeoplasmsRectumRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID25708682
OpenAlexW2080171535

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.