Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27770247›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2017

Urogenital function in robotic vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a comparative study.

Sofoklis Panteleimonitis, Jamil Ahmed, Meghana Ramachandra, Muhammad Farooq, Mick Harper, Amjad Parvaiz

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 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. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. How robotics is changing and will change the field of colorectal surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2019
    Article
  19. Observational
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sofoklis PanteleimonitisDepartment of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Unit, Queen Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK. sofoklis_p@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3610-1201
Jamil AhmedDepartment of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Unit, Queen Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
Meghana RamachandraDepartment of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Unit, Queen Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
Muhammad FarooqDepartment of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Unit, Queen Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
Mick HarperSchool of Health Sciences and Social Work, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
Amjad ParvaizDepartment of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Unit, Queen Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
Queen Alexandra Hospital · GBChampalimaud Foundation · PTUniversity of Portsmouth · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUrological and sexual dysfunction are recognised risks of rectal cancer surgery; however, there is limited evidence regarding urogenital function comparing robotic to laparoscopic techniques. The aim of this study was to assess the urogenital functional outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer surgery.

methodsUrological and sexual functions were assessed using gender-specific validated standardised questionnaires. Questionnaires were sent a minimum of 6 months after surgery, and patients were asked to report their urogenital function pre- and post-operatively, allowing changes in urogenital function to be identified. Questionnaires were sent to 158 patients (89 laparoscopy, 69 robotic) of whom 126 (80 %) responded. Seventy-eight (49 male, 29 female) of the responders underwent laparoscopic and 48 (35 male, 13 female) robotic surgery.

resultsMale patients in the robotic group deteriorated less across all components of sexual function and in five components of urological function. Composite male urological and sexual function score changes from baseline were better in the robotic cohort (p < 0.001). In females, there was no difference between the two groups in any of the components of urological or sexual function. However, composite female urological function score change from baseline was better in the robotic group (p = 0.003).

conclusionRobotic rectal cancer surgery might offer better post-operative urological and sexual outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery in male patients and better urological outcomes in females. Larger scale, prospective randomised control studies including urodynamic assessment of urogenital function are required to validate these results.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRoboticsAgedDemographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRectal NeoplasmsSexual Dysfunction, PhysiologicalUrogenital SystemRectal cancerRobotic surgerySexual functionUrogenital functionUrological function

Identifiers

PMID27770247
PMCPMC5285426
OpenAlexW2538816517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.