Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30456506›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2019

Right hemicolectomy: a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, total laparoscopic, and robotic approach.

Emanuele Rausa, Michael Eamon Kelly, Emanuele Asti, Alberto Aiolfi, Gianluca Bonitta, Luigi Bonavina

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Robotic-assisted right colectomy with the DEXTERTechniques in coloproctology · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Emanuele RausaDivision of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences of Health, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, University of Milan Medical School, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy. emarausa@yahoo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6780-1783
Michael Eamon KellyDepartment of Surgery, Connolly Hospital, Blanchardstown, Dublin, Ireland.
Emanuele AstiDivision of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences of Health, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, University of Milan Medical School, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy.
Alberto AiolfiDivision of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences of Health, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, University of Milan Medical School, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy.
Gianluca BonittaDivision of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences of Health, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, University of Milan Medical School, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy.
Luigi BonavinaDivision of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences of Health, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, University of Milan Medical School, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy.
University of Milan · ITConnolly Hospital Blanchardstown · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are a variety of surgical approaches for the management of right-sided colonic neoplasms. To date, no method has been shown superior in terms of surgical and perioperative outcomes. This meta-analysis compared open (ORH), laparoscopic-assisted (LRH), total laparoscopic (TLRH), and robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) to assess surgical outcomes and perioperative morbidity and mortality. STUDY

designWe conducted an electronic systematic search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science that compared RRH, TLRH, LRH, and ORH. Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria: 5 randomized controlled trials, 25 retrospective, and 18 prospective studies totalling 5652 patients were included.

resultsThe overall complication rate was similar between RRH and TLRH (RR 1.0; Crl 0.66-1.5). The anastomotic leak rate was higher in LRH and ORH compared to RRH (RR 1.9; Crl 0.99-3.6 and RR 1.2; Crl 0.55-2.6, respectively), whereas it was lower in TLRH compared to RRH (RR 0.88 Crl 0.41-1.9). The risk of reoperation was significantly higher in ORH compared to TLRH (RR 3.3; Crl 1.3-8.0). Operative time was similar in RRH compared to LRH (RR - 27.0; Crl - 61.0 to 5.9), and to TLRH (RR - 24.0; Crl - 70.0 to 21.0). The hospital stay was significantly longer in LRH compared to RRH (RR 3.7; Crl 0.7-6.7).

conclusionThe surgical management of right-sided colonic disease is evolving. This network meta-analysis observed that short-term outcomes following RRH and TLRH were superior to standard LRH and ORH. The adoption of more advanced minimally invasive techniques can be costly and have associated learning phases, but will ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresColectomyColonic NeoplasmsHumansLength of StayOperative TimeReoperationCost analysisLaparoscopyPostoperative complicationsRight hemicolectomyRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID30456506
OpenAlexW2901907983

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.