Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30120743›Full record

ReviewUpdates in surgery2018

Sexual and urinary outcomes in robotic rectal surgery: review of the literature and technical considerations.

Fabrizio Luca, Danielle K Craigg, Maheswari Senthil, Matthew J Selleck, Blake D Babcock, Mark E Reeves, Carlos A Garberoglio

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Updates in surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Morphogenesis and Topography of the Mesorectal Fascia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Urogenital dysfunction in patients after miniinvasive restorative low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020
    Review
  17. Review
  18. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fabrizio LucaDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University, 11175 Campus Street, 21111, Loma Linda, CA, 92350, USA. fluca@llu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6346-1769
Danielle K CraiggDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University, 11175 Campus Street, 21111, Loma Linda, CA, 92350, USA.
Maheswari SenthilDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University, 11175 Campus Street, 21111, Loma Linda, CA, 92350, USA.
Matthew J SelleckDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University, 11175 Campus Street, 21111, Loma Linda, CA, 92350, USA.
Blake D BabcockDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University, 11175 Campus Street, 21111, Loma Linda, CA, 92350, USA.
Mark E ReevesDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University, 11175 Campus Street, 21111, Loma Linda, CA, 92350, USA.
Carlos A GarberoglioDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University, 11175 Campus Street, 21111, Loma Linda, CA, 92350, USA.
Loma Linda University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several studies have reported high rates of urogenital dysfunction after open and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Robotic surgery has several features that could facilitate identification and preservation of autonomic nerves. This manuscript aims to summarize the literature regarding urogenital function after robotic rectal cancer surgery and focus on technical aspects of nerve-sparing total mesorectal excision. Comprehensive searches were conducted through online databases. Selection criteria included: original articles assessing urinary and sexual function after robotic surgery of males and/or females with standardized questionnaires. A total of 16 articles were included in the review. Seven of the nine cohort studies evaluating male sexual function showed earlier recovery or better outcomes in patients operated with robotic techniques. Two studies did not find any statistically significant difference. Three out of four case series found no difference in sexual function scores measured preoperatively and after 1 year. Female sexual function was assessed in seven studies: two case series show no deterioration of at 1 year. Three comparative studies showed no difference between robotic and laparoscopic groups. Two randomized control trials showed different results in terms of male and female sexual functions with better preservation at 1 year in the robotic group in one and no difference in another. Urinary functions assessed in males and/or females in the 16 studies showed no statistically significant differences at long-term follow-up. At present, there is no evidence of superiority of robotic surgery for performing nerve-sparing rectal cancer surgery.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansMaleRectal NeoplasmsRectumRobotic Surgical ProceduresSexual Dysfunction, PhysiologicalTreatment OutcomeUrologic DiseasesLaparoscopic surgeryRectal cancerRobotic surgerySexual functionUrinary functionUrogenital function

Identifiers

PMID30120743
OpenAlexW2885510603

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.