Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29022779›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2017

Short-term surgical outcomes and patient quality of life between robotic and laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision for adenocarcinoma of the rectum.

D Kamali, A Reddy, S Imam, K Omar, A Jha, M Jha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. RoboticWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024
    Article
  9. Streamlining robotic-assisted abdominoperineal resection.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. RoboticIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
    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

6 authors.

D KamaliSouth Tees NHS Trust, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
A ReddySouth Tees NHS Trust, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
S ImamSouth Tees NHS Trust, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
K OmarSouth Tees NHS Trust, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
A JhaSouth Tees NHS Trust, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
M JhaSouth Tees NHS Trust, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Some studies advocate a laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (l-ELAPE) approach for low rectal cancer. The da Vinci™ robot (r-ELAPE) technique has potential to overcome some limitations of l-ELAPE, such as reduction of the learning curve and more precise tissue handling. It is unknown whether this approach results in improved surgical or quality of life outcomes compared with l-ELAPE. This study aimed to address this issue. Methods Consecutive patients having undergone either robotic or laparoscopic ELAPE for adenocarcinoma were studied. All operations were performed by two surgeons experienced in laparoscopic and recently introduced robotic surgery. Surgical outcomes were determined by postoperative histology and short-term complications. Quality of life was prospectively assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLC-CR30 and QLC-CR29 questionnaires. Results A total of 22 patients (11 r-ELAPE) with a median follow-up of 13 months (8 months robotic; 22 months laparoscopic) were studied. The groups were similarly matched for age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, preoperative chemoradiotherapy and tumour height. All had R0 resection. There was no significant difference in short-term surgical outcomes between groups. There was no significant difference in mean global health scores between the two groups (74 ± 14 r-ELAPE vs. 73 ± 10 l-ELAPE). The r-ELAPE group had a lower mean impotence score compared with the I-ELAPE group (55.5 ± 40 vs. 72.2 ± 44), although this was not statistically significant. Conclusions The newly introduced r-ELAPE was non-inferior to l-ELAPE in either patient quality of life or surgical outcomes. Robotic surgery could be particularly beneficial in the technically challenging area of low rectal cancer surgery with a shorter learning curve than laparoscopy.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAbdomenAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedPerineumPostoperative ComplicationsRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment OutcomeAbdominoperineal excisionLaparoscopyQuality of lifeRectal cancerRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID29022779
PMCPMC5696922

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.