Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25762242›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2015

Surgical stress response after colorectal resection: a comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery.

J Shibata, S Ishihara, N Tada, K Kawai, N H Tsuno, H Yamaguchi, E Sunami, J Kitayama, T Watanabe

Abstract readComparative Study
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 35 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

9 authors.

J ShibataDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan, shibata200101545@yahoo.co.jp.
S Ishihara
N Tada
K Kawai
N H Tsuno
H Yamaguchi
E Sunami
J Kitayama
T Watanabe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe perioperative immune status of colorectal robotic surgery (RS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and open surgery (OS) patients has not been compared. Our aim was to evaluate perioperative stress and immune response after RS, LS and OS.

methodsThis prospective study included 46 colorectal surgery patients from the Department of Surgical Oncology of the University of Tokyo Hospital. Peripheral venous blood samples were obtained preoperatively and on postoperative days 1, 3, and 6. We evaluated expression of HLA-DR (marker of immune competence), C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and lymphocyte subset counts (natural killers, cytotoxic T cells and helper T cells).

resultsFifteen, 23, and 8 patients underwent RS, LS and OS, respectively. HLA-DR expression was the lowest on day 1 and gradually increased on days 3 and 6 in all the groups. There was no significant difference in postoperative HLA-DR expression between the RS and LS group. However, on day 3, HLA-DR expression in the RS group was significantly higher than in the OS group (p = 0.04). On day 1, CRP levels in the LS group were significantly lower than in the RS group (p = 0.038). There were no significant perioperative changes in the lymphocyte subset cell count between the three groups.

conclusionsPerioperative surgical stress, as evaluated by immunological parameters, was comparable between robotic and laparoscopic surgery and higher with open surgery. Robotic surgery may be an alternative to laparoscopic surgery, as a minimally invasive surgery option for colorectal cancer.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkersColonic NeoplasmsC-Reactive ProteinFemaleHLA-DR AntigensHumansLymphocyte CountLymphocytesMaleMiddle AgedPerioperative PeriodBiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinHLA-DR Antigens

Identifiers

PMID25762242

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.