ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2016
[Robotic technology for colorectal surgery : Procedures, current applications, and future innovative challenges - German version].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Evidence of indocyanine green fluorescence in robotically assisted colorectal surgery : What is the status?]Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Current treatment approaches are multidisciplinary, including neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. Several studies have reported an improvement in surgical techniques and in new devices facilitating better pre- and intraoperative staging.
objectivesSince its first application in 2002, robotic surgery has progressed steadily, offering good surgical results and better oncological outcomes. Currently, many studies and reviews have confirmed its safety and feasibility for colorectal cancer. MATERIAL AND
methodsRobotic technology simplifies surgical maneuvers thanks to the three-dimensional magnification and stable vision, convenient mobility of the robotic arms, endowrist instruments with seven degrees of freedom, ambidextrous capability, tremor filtering and indocyanine green fluorescence imaging.
resultsRegarding the oncological outcome, the robotic technique is equivalent to the laparoscopic approach; however, a lower recurrence rate has been achieved with the robotic approach in extended lymphadenectomy as part of complete mesocolic excision for right colonic cancer and total mesorectal excision for low rectal tumors.
conclusionColorectal robotic surgery has progressively improved worldwide. Its advantages are related not only to better oncological outcomes, but also to improvements in terms of detection, accurate diagnosis and staging.
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.