Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29546470›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2018

Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of robotic colorectal resections for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic literature review.

S Renshaw, I L Silva, A Hotouras, S D Wexner, J Murphy, C Bhan

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. How safe is teaching of highly specialized rectal surgery? A propensity score-matched 10-year cohort study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The future of robotic surgery for inflammatory bowel diseases.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Training for Minimally Invasive Surgery for IBD: A Current Need.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2021
    Review
  16. The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery.Current gastroenterology reports · 2019
    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 5 institutions in 2 countries.

S RenshawDepartment of Surgery, Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
I L SilvaDepartment of Surgery, Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
A HotourasNational Centre for Bowel Research and Surgical Innovation, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. alex007@doctors.org.uk.
S D WexnerDigestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA.
J MurphyDepartment of Surgery, Imperial College, London, UK.
C BhanDepartment of Surgery, Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
University College London · GBCleveland Clinic Florida · USImperial College London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBWhittington Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess outcome measures and cost-effectiveness of robotic colorectal resections in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The Cochrane Library, PubMed/Medline and Embase databases were reviewed, using the text "robotic(s)" AND ("inflammatory bowel disease" OR "Crohn's" OR "Ulcerative Colitis"). Two investigators screened abstracts for eligibility. All English language full-text articles were reviewed for specified outcomes. Data were presented in a summarised and aggregate form, since the lack of higher-level evidence studies precluded meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included mortality and postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included readmission rate, length of stay, conversion rate, procedure time, estimated blood loss and functional outcome. The tertiary outcome was cost-effectiveness. Eight studies (3 case-matched observational studies, 4 case series and 1 case report) met the inclusion criteria. There was no reported mortality. Overall, complications occurred in 81 patients (54%) including 30 (20%) Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications. Mean length of stay was 8.6 days. Eleven cases (7.3%) were converted to open. The mean robotic operating time was 99 min out of a mean total operating time of 298.6 min. Thirty-two patients (24.7%) were readmitted. Functional outcomes were comparable among robotic, laparoscopic and open approaches. Case-matched observational studies comparing robotic to laparoscopic surgery revealed a significantly longer procedure time; however, conversion, complication, length of stay and readmission rates were similar. The case-matched observational study comparing robotic to open surgery also revealed a longer procedure time and a higher readmission rate; postoperative complication rates and length of stay were similar. No studies compared cost-effectiveness between robotic and traditional approaches. Although robotic resections for inflammatory bowel disease are technically feasible, outcomes must be interpreted with caution due to low-quality studies.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalColonConversion to Open SurgeryCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansInflammatory Bowel DiseasesLaparoscopyLength of StayOperative TimePatient ReadmissionPerioperative PeriodPostoperative ComplicationsRecovery of FunctionRectumRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment OutcomeColorectal resectionInflammatory bowel diseaseRobotic surgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID29546470
PMCPMC5862938
OpenAlexW2791017993

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.