Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28721636›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2018

Robotic colorectal surgery: previous laparoscopic colorectal experience is not essential.

Tanvir Singh Sian, G M Tierney, H Park, J N Lund, W J Speake, N G Hurst, H Al Chalabi, K J Smith, S Tou

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tanvir Singh SianDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK. t.sian@nhs.net.
G M TierneyDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
H ParkDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
J N LundDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
W J SpeakeDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
N G HurstDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
H Al ChalabiDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
K J SmithDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
S TouDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
Royal Derby Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Colorectal SurgeryRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurgeonsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEducation, Medical, ContinuingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsColorectal cancerLaparoscopic trainingMinimally invasiveRobotic surgeryRobotic training

Identifiers

PMID28721636
OpenAlexW2736500989

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.