Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26410261›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2016

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted colectomy and rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Laura Lorenzon, Fabiano Bini, Genoveffa Balducci, Mario Ferri, Pier Federico Salvi, Franco Marinozzi

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 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. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

6 authors.

Laura LorenzonSurgical and Medical Department of Traslational Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035-39, 00189, Rome, Italy. laura.lorenzon@uniroma1.it.
Fabiano BiniDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, "Sapienza" University of Rome, via Eudossiana 18, 00184, Rome, Italy.
Genoveffa BalducciSurgical and Medical Department of Traslational Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035-39, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Mario FerriSurgical and Medical Department of Traslational Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035-39, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Pier Federico SalviSurgical and Medical Department of Traslational Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035-39, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Franco MarinozziDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, "Sapienza" University of Rome, via Eudossiana 18, 00184, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLately, the main technical innovations in the field of colorectal surgery have been the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic techniques; the aim of this study is to investigate the results and the advantages of these two surgical approaches.

methodsTwenty-two studies including 1652 laparoscopic and 1120 robotic-assisted resections were analyzed and categorized into right, left, and pelvic resections of the middle/low rectum, aiming to the following outcomes: operating time, blood loss, bowel function recovery, return to oral intake, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs.

resultsThe vast majority of the studies were non-randomized investigations (19/22 studies) enrolling small cohorts of patients (median 55.0 laparoscopic and 34.5 robotic-assisted group) with a mean age of 62.2-61.0 years. Funnel plot analysis documented heterogeneity in studies which combined cancers and benign diseases. Our meta-analysis demonstrated a significant difference in favor of laparoscopic procedures regarding costs and operating time (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.686 and 0.493) and in favor of robotic surgery concerning morbidity rate (odds ratio (OR) 0.763), although no benefits were documented when analyzing exclusively randomized trials. When we differentiated approaches by side of resections, a significant difference was found in favor of the laparoscopic group when analyzing operating time in left-sided and pelvic procedures (SMD 0.609 and 0.529) and blood loss in pelvic resections (SMD 0.339).

conclusionLaparoscopic techniques were documented as the shorter procedures, which provided lower blood loss in pelvic resections, while morbidity rate was more favorable in robotic surgery. However, these results could not be confirmed when we focused the analysis on randomized trials only.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresBlood Loss, SurgicalColectomyColonic DiseasesColorectal NeoplasmsHospital CostsHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayLymph Node ExcisionOperative TimeRecovery of FunctionRectal DiseasesRectumColorectal cancerLaparoscopyMeta-analysisRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID26410261

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.