Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30187156›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2018

Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Seon Heui Lee, Dong Hyun Kim, Sang Woo Lim

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. ROBOTIC-ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC INCISIONAL HERNIA REPAIR: DIFFERENCES IN DIRECT COSTS FROM A BRAZILIAN PUBLIC INSTITUTE PERSPECTIVE.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2023
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors.

Seon Heui LeeDepartment of Nursing Science, College of Nursing, Gachon University, Hambakmoe-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, South Korea.
Dong Hyun KimDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University of Hallym College of Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, 22 Gwanpyeong-ro 170-gil, Dongan-gu, Anyang, 14068, Republic of Korea.
Sang Woo LimDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University of Hallym College of Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, 22 Gwanpyeong-ro 170-gil, Dongan-gu, Anyang, 14068, Republic of Korea. swlim12@hallym.ac.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8248-8406

Funding

Hallym University Research Fund HURF-2016-07
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFew studies have compared robotic and laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR) in rectal cancer. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of recently published studies to compare perioperative outcomes of ISR for the treatment of low rectal cancer.

methodsWe performed a systematic literature search of the Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic ISR in patients with low rectal cancer. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Perioperative outcomes of interest included the rate of diverting stoma, open conversion rate, operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, and time to initiate the postoperative diet. Oncological outcomes included the number of retrieved lymph nodes, distal resection margin, proximal resection margin, circumferential resection margin, 3-year overall survival, 3-year disease-free survival, and local recurrence. Postoperative complications included overall complications, a Dindo-Clavien classification ≥ III, and anastomotic leakage. All outcomes were compared between the two groups.

resultsWe included 5 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 510 patients undergoing 273 (53.5%) robotic ISR procedures and 237 (46.5%) laparoscopic ISR procedures. The robotic ISR group lower conversion rate, lower blood loss, and longer operation times than the laparoscopic group. We also noted that fewer lymph nodes were harvested in the robotic ISR group; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Other outcomes were similar between the two groups.

conclusionsRobotic and laparoscopic ISR showed comparable perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, and 3-year oncologic outcomes; however, robotic ISR was associated with a lower conversion rate and less blood loss despite longer operation times compared to laparoscopic ISR. These findings suggest that robotic ISR maybe a safe and effective technique for treating low rectal cancer in selected patients. The potential oncologic and functional benefits of robotic ISR should be evaluated in larger randomized controlled trials.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnal CanalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRectal NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeIntersphincteric resectionMeta-analysisRectal cancerRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID30187156

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.