ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for total abdominal colectomy.
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 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 100 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- What have we learned in minimally invasive colorectal surgery from NSQIP and NIS large databases? A systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Pooled it
- Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of robotic colorectal resections for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic literature review.Techniques in coloproctology · 2018Pooled it
- A propensity score-matched NSQIP analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy in inflammatory bowel disease.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Diverticular disease complicated by colovesical and colovaginal fistulas: not so complex robotically.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Robotic surgery may lead to reduced postoperative inflammatory stress in colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Article
- First Worldwide Report of a Total Colectomy with the Hugo RAS Platform.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Robotic total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Article
- Limited Access to Aortic Valve Procedures in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Areas.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Cost-comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal resections: a mapped systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
- A retrospective comparison of 90-day outcomes, length of stay, and readmissions between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Utility and usability of laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) for displaying real-time tissue perfusion/blood flow in robot-assisted surgery (RAS): comparison to indocyanine green (ICG) and use in laparoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022Review
- Tips and Details for Successful Robotic Myomectomy: Single-Center Experience with the First 125 Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Operating costs, fiscal impact, value analysis and guidance for the routine use of robotic technology in abdominal surgical procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Short Term Outcomes of Open and Minimally Invasive Approaches to Segmental Colectomy for Benign Colovesical Fistula.Surgery research and practice · 2022Article
- Robotic multiquadrant colorectal procedures: A single-center experience and a systematic review of the literature.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Influence of surgeon specialty and volume on the utilization of minimally invasive surgery and outcomes for colorectal cancer: a retrospective review.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Robotic Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2021Review
- Hospital robotic use for colorectal cancer care.Journal of robotic surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe utilization of minimally invasive surgery is increasing in colorectal surgery. We sought to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent elective open, laparoscopic, and robotic total abdominal colectomy.
methodsThe NIS database was used to examine the clinical data of patients who underwent an elective total colectomy procedure during 2009-2012. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to compare the three surgical approaches.
resultsWe sampled a total of 26,721 patients who underwent elective total colectomy. Of these, 16,780 (62.8 %) had an open operation, while 9934 (37.2 %) had a minimally invasive approach (9614 laparoscopic surgery, and 326 robotic surgery). The most common indication for an operation was ulcerative colitis (31 %). Patients who underwent open surgery had significantly higher mortality and morbidity compared to laparoscopic (AOR 2.48, 1.30, P < 0.01) and robotic approaches (AOR 1.04, 1.30, P < 0.01 and P = 0.04, respectively). There was no significant difference in mortality and morbidity between the laparoscopic and robotic approaches (AOR 0.96, 1.03, P = 0.10, P = 0.78). However, conversion rate of laparoscopic surgery to open was significantly higher than that of robotic approach (13.3 vs. 1.5 %, P < 0.01). Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery had significantly lower total hospital charges compared to patients who underwent open surgery (mean difference = $21,489, P < 0.01). Also, total hospital charges for a robotic approach were significantly higher than for a laparoscopic approach (mean difference = $15,595, P < 0.01).
conclusionMinimally invasive approaches to total colectomy are safe, with the advantage of lower mortality and morbidity compared to an open approach. Although there was no significant difference in the morbidity between minimally invasive approaches, robotic surgery had a significantly lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopic approach. Total hospital charges are significantly higher in robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic approach.
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.