Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30334160›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019

Comparative effectiveness of human scope assistant versus robotic scope holder in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

Yasushi Ohmura, Hiromitsu Suzuki, Kazutoshi Kotani, Atsushi Teramoto

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yasushi OhmuraDepartment of Cancer Treatment Support Center, Okayama City Hospital, 1-20-3 Kitanagase-omotemachi, Kita-ku, Okayama, Okayama, 700-8557, Japan. yohmura826@yahoo.co.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-1102-9402
Hiromitsu SuzukiDepartment of Surgery, Yakage Hospital, 2695 Yakage, Yakage-chou, Oda, Okayama, 714-1201, Japan.
Kazutoshi KotaniDepartment of Surgery, Kasaoka Daiichi Hospital, 1945 Yokoshima, Kasaoka, Okayama, 714-0043, Japan.
Atsushi TeramotoDepartment of Surgery, Okayama City Hospital, 1-20-3 Kitanagase-omotemachi, Kita-ku, Okayama, Okayama, 700-8557, Japan.
Okayama University Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral types of robotic scope holders have been developed to date, but there are only some experimental reports or the results of small clinical cases. The Soloassist® system is a unique robotic scope holder with which the surgeon can control the field of view by a joystick. We evaluated the efficacy of Soloassist in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe investigated operative time, blood loss, setup time, length of hospital stay, and the number of participating surgeons in 273 laparoscopic colorectal resections, including 130 cases with human assistant (HA group) and 143 cases with Soloassist (SA group). Additionally, we also used logistic regression of the perioperative factors for the propensity score calculation to balance the bias.

resultsThe number of participating surgeons was apparently less in the SA group (HA group: 3.3 vs. SA group: 2.5, p < 0.01). The average operative time was shorter in the SA group, but there was no statistical difference (HA group: 287.0 min vs. SA group: 268.5 min, p = 0.07). No significant difference was found in setup time, conversion rate, perioperative complications, and length of hospital stay. There was no conversion case to human scope assistant and no system-specific adverse event. Similar results were observed between two groups after propensity score matching.

conclusionLaparoscopic colorectal resection with Soloassist is safe and feasible. The present study demonstrated that Soloassist system provided the possibilities of saving human resources in laparoscopic colorectal resection without prolonged operative time or system-specific morbidity. Soloassist is an effective robot-assisted surgical instrument for colorectal surgery.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresLaparoscopyRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedColorectal NeoplasmsComparative Effectiveness ResearchFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareRetrospective StudiesColorectal cancerLaparoscopic surgeryRobotic scope holderSoloassist

Identifiers

PMID30334160
OpenAlexW2896292072

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.