Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26139489›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016

Robotic approaches may offer benefit in colorectal procedures, more controversial in other areas: a review of 168,248 cases.

Maria S Altieri, Jie Yang, Dana A Telem, Jiawen Zhu, Caitlin Halbert, Mark Talamini, Aurora D Pryor

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Intelligent, Autonomous Machines in Surgery.The Journal of surgical research · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Maria S AltieriDivision of Bariatric, Foregut and Advanced Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University Medical Center, 100 Nichols Road, HSC T18-040, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA. altieri.m@gmail.com.
Jie YangDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Dana A TelemDivision of Bariatric, Foregut and Advanced Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University Medical Center, 100 Nichols Road, HSC T18-040, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.
Jiawen ZhuDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Caitlin HalbertDivision of Bariatric, Foregut and Advanced Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University Medical Center, 100 Nichols Road, HSC T18-040, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.
Mark TalaminiDivision of Bariatric, Foregut and Advanced Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University Medical Center, 100 Nichols Road, HSC T18-040, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.
Aurora D PryorDivision of Bariatric, Foregut and Advanced Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University Medical Center, 100 Nichols Road, HSC T18-040, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA. aurora.pryor@stonybrookmedicine.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhile the penetrance of robotic surgery into field of urology and gynecology has been significant, general surgeons have been slower adopters. We sought to compare laparoscopy and RAS among five different general surgical procedures with various penetrance of MIS.

methodsFollowing IRB approval, the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System administrative data were used to identify five common laparoscopic general surgery procedures: cholecystectomy, colectomy, esophageal fundoplication (EF), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) between 2008 and 2012. ICD-9 codes were used to select laparoscopic versus robotic procedures. Procedures were compared based on any complication and hospital length of stay (HLOS). Following descriptive analysis, propensity score analysis was used to estimate the population average differences between patients who underwent robotic-assisted and laparoscopic procedures.

resultsThere were 1458 patients who had undergone robotic-assisted surgery and 166,790 patients who had undergone laparoscopic surgery among the five procedures between 2008 and 2012. Of the 1458 robotic cases, 186 were cholecystectomy, 307 were RYGB, 118 were SG, 288 were EF, and 559 were colectomy. Initial univariate analysis showed a significantly higher rate of overall complications and HLOS in the laparoscopic group compared to the robotic-assisted group. Laparoscopic colectomy had a significantly higher rate of complications and longer length of stay compared to robotic approaches. No difference in complications or HLOS was seen in the cholecystectomy group. Following propensity score analysis, patients who had undergone robotic-assisted colectomy had significantly lower rate of complications compared to those who underwent conventional laparoscopic procedure (p value = 0.0022). In addition, patients who underwent robotic-assisted SG had on average 1.22 days longer HLOS (p value = 0.0037).

conclusionRobotic approaches may facilitate safer adoption of minimally invasive approaches in areas where penetrance of conventional laparoscopy is low, such as in colorectal surgery.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualDigestive System Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleNew YorkPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRobotic Surgical ProceduresGeneral surgeryLaparoscopic surgeryOutcomesRobotic surgery

Identifiers

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.