ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2018
Robotic colorectal surgery: previous laparoscopic colorectal experience is not essential.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- European Society of Coloproctology guideline on training in robotic colorectal surgery (2024).Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Guideline
- The current status of robotic colorectal surgery training programmes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Laparoscopic vs. robotic rectal cancer surgery and the effect on conversion rates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies.Techniques in coloproctology · 2019Pooled it
- What to consider when designing a laparoscopic colorectal training curriculum: a review of the literature.Techniques in coloproctology · 2018Pooled it
- European Delphi consensus on specific training, implementation requirements, and clinical use for the Hugo™ robotic-assisted surgery platform in colorectal procedures.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Concurrent robotic colorectal surgical oncology training within a structured mentored international fellowship program.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- The training pathway for residents: 'Robotic Curriculum for young Surgeons' (RoCS) does not impair patient outcome during implementation into clinical routine.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic-assisted surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a long but safe learning curve.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Surgical Complexity and Outcome During the Implementation Phase of a Robotic Colorectal Surgery Program-A Retrospective Cohort Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A background in minimally invasive colorectal surgery (MICS) has been thought to be essential prior to robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS). Our aim was to determine whether MICS is essential prior to starting RACS training based on results from our initial experience with RACS. Two surgeons from our centre received robotic training through the European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery (EARCS). One surgeon had no prior formal MICS training. We reviewed the first 30 consecutive robotic colorectal procedures from a prospectively maintained database between November 2014 and January 2016 at our institution. Fourteen patients were male. Median age was 64.5 years (range 36-82) and BMI was 27.5 (range 20-32.5). Twelve procedures (40%) were performed by the non-MICS-trained surgeon: ten high anterior resections (one conversion), one low anterior resection and one abdomino-perineal resection of rectum (APER). The MICS-trained surgeon performed nine high and four low anterior resections, one APER and in addition three right hemicolectomies and one abdominal suture rectopexy. There were no intra-operative complications and two patients required re-operation. Median post-operative stay was five days (range 1-26). There were two 30-day re-admissions. All oncological resections had clear margins and median node harvest was 18 (range 9-39). Our case series demonstrates that a background in MICS is not essential prior to starting RACS training. Not having prior MICS training should not discourage surgeons from considering applying for a robotic training programme. Safe and successful robotic colorectal services can be established after completing a formal structured robotic training programme.
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.