ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2014
Robot-assisted gastroesophageal surgery: usefulness and limitations.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The ALBS (Albert-Lembert with Knotless Barbed Sutures) Method for Esophagojejunostomy After Totally Robotic Radical Total Gastrectomy.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Article
- Economic evaluation of robotic and laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Rapid evolution of a Morgagni hernia with herniation of the left hepatic lobe: case report and review of the literature.Journal of surgical case reports · 2022Article
- Safety of robotic assisted laparoscopic recurrent paraesophageal hernia repair: insights from a large single institution experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Intrathoracic side-to-side esophagogastrostomy with a linear stapler and barbed suture in robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.Journal of surgical oncology · 2019Article
- Robotic Morgagni hernia repair: an emerging approach to a congenital defect.Journal of robotic surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted surgery overcomes some of the limitations of traditional laparoscopic surgery. We present our experience and lessons learned in two surgical units dedicated to gastro-esophageal surgery. From June 2009 to January 2013, we performed 130 robot-assisted gastroesophageal procedures, including Nissen fundoplication (29), paraesophageal hernia repair (18), redo for failed antireflux surgery (11), esophagectomy (19), subtotal (5) or wedge (4) gastrectomy, Heller myotomy for achalasia (22), gastric bypass for morbid obesity (12), thoracoscopic leiomyomectomy (4), Morgagni hernia repair (3), lower-third esophageal diverticulectomy (1) and two diagnostic procedures. There were 80 men and 50 women with a median age of 54 years (interquartile range: 46-65). Ten patients (7.7 %) had severe postoperative complications: eight after esophagectomy (three leaks-two cervical and one thoracic-managed conservatively), one stapler failure, one chylothorax, one case of gastric migration to the thorax, one case of biliary peritonitis, and one patient with a transient ventricular dyskinesia. One redo procedure needed reoperation because of port-site bleeding, and one patient died of pulmonary complications after a giant paraesophageal hernia repair; 30-day mortality was, therefore, 0.8 %. There were six elective and one forced conversions (hemorrhage), so total conversion was 5.4 %. Median length of stay was 4 days (IQ range 3-7). Robot-assisted gastroesophageal surgery is feasible and safe, and may be applied to most common procedures. It seems of particular value for Heller myotomy, large paraesophageal hernias, redo antireflux surgery, transhiatal dissection, and hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27637520What 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.