Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27402096›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2016

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Xuan Zhang, ZhengQiang Wei, MengJun Bie, XuDong Peng, Cheng Chen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04013152 (French Prospective Clinical Database of Colorectal Robotic Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 59 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 11 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.

NCT04013152 active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

French Prospective Clinical Database of Colorectal Robotic Surgery

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorInstitut du Cancer de Montpellier - Val d'AurelleRan2018 to 2027Enrolled1,800ConditionsCrohn Disease, Polyposis, Ulcerative Colitis, DiverticulitisArmsClinical database
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. 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

5 authors.

Xuan ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No. 1, Youyi Road, Yuanjiagang, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400016, People's Republic of China.
ZhengQiang WeiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No. 1, Youyi Road, Yuanjiagang, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400016, People's Republic of China. 384535713@qq.com.
MengJun BieDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.
XuDong PengDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No. 1, Youyi Road, Yuanjiagang, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400016, People's Republic of China.
Cheng ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No. 1, Youyi Road, Yuanjiagang, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400016, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesRobotic surgery is positioned at the cutting edge of minimally invasive management of colorectal cancer. We performed a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (NRCTs) that compared the clinicopathological outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) with those of laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery (LACS). Inferences on the feasibility and the relative safety and efficacy have been drawn.

methodsA literature search for relevant studies was performed on MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Inter-group differences in the standardized mean differences and relative risk were assessed. Operation times, conversion rates to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), early postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LHS) were compared. Oncologic outcomes assessed were number of lymph nodes harvested and lengths of proximal and distal resection margins.

resultsTwenty-four studies (2 RCTs and 22 NRCTs [5 prospective plus 17 retrospective]) with a total of 3318 patients were included. Of these, 1466 (44.18 %) patients underwent RACS and 1852 (55.82 %) underwent LACS. Conversion rates, EBL and LHS were significantly lower, while the operation times and total costs were similar between RACS and LACS. Complication rates and oncological accuracy of resection showed no significant difference.

conclusionBased on this meta-analysis, RACS appears to be a promising surgical approach with its safety and efficacy comparable to that of LACS in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Further studies are required to evaluate the long-term cost-efficiency as well as the functional and oncologic outcomes of RACS.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresColorectal NeoplasmsConversion to Open SurgeryHumansLength of StayLymph Node ExcisionOperative TimeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicColorectal cancerColorectal surgeryLaparoscopic surgeryMeta-analysisRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID27402096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.