Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27631313›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017

Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

Dae Ro Lim, Sung Uk Bae, Hyuk Hur, Byung Soh Min, Seung Hyuk Baik, Kang Young Lee, Nam Kyu Kim

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [Robotic rectal surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  20. Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excisions: A Propensity-Score Matched Cohort study of 5-year survival outcomes.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dae Ro LimColon and Rectal Surgery Section, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Sung Uk BaeColon and Rectal Surgery Section, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Hyuk HurColon and Rectal Surgery Section, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Byung Soh MinColon and Rectal Surgery Section, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Seung Hyuk BaikColon and Rectal Surgery Section, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Kang Young LeeColon and Rectal Surgery Section, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Nam Kyu KimColon and Rectal Surgery Section, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. namkyuk@yuhs.ac.
Yonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

proposeThe use of robotic surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for rectal cancer is increasing steadily worldwide. However, there are insufficient data on long-term outcomes of robotic surgery in this clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year oncological outcomes of laparoscopic vs. robotic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT. MATERIALS AND

methodsOne hundred thirty-eight patients who underwent robotic (n = 74) or laparoscopic (n = 64) resections between January 2006 and December 2010 for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT were identified from a prospective database. The long-term oncological outcomes of these patients were analyzed using prospective follow-up data.

resultsThe median follow-up period was 56.1 ± 16.6 months (range 11-101). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of the laparoscopic and robotic groups was 93.3 and 90.0 %, respectively, (p = 0424). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 76.0 % (laparoscopic) vs. 76.8 % (robotic) (p = 0.834). In a subgroup analysis according to the yp-stage (complete pathologic response, yp-stage I, yp-stage II, or yp-stage III), the between-group oncological outcomes were not significantly different. The local recurrence rate was 6.3 % (laparoscopic, n = 4) vs. 2.7 % (robotic, n = 2) (p = 0.308). The systemic recurrence rate was 15.6 % (laparoscopic, n = 10) vs. 18.9 % (robotic, n = 14) (p = 0.644). All recurrences occurred within less than 36 months in both groups. The median period of recurrence was 14.2 months.

conclusionRobotic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT can be performed safely, with long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those obtained with laparoscopic surgery. More large-scale studies and long-term follow-up data are needed.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyRectal NeoplasmsRectumRetrospective StudiesLaparoscopic surgeryOncological outcomesRectal cancerRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID27631313
OpenAlexW2517140370

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.