Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30536133›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2019

A propensity score matched comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal techniques for robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy in an enhanced recovery pathway.

Riad H Al Natour, Vincent Obias, Jeremy Albright, Juan Wu, Jane Ferraro, Warqaa M Akram, Amanda M McClure, Beth-Ann Shanker, Robert K Cleary

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Anastomotic Considerations in Diverticulitis.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2023
    Review
  8. Robotic Anastomotic Technique.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

9 authors.

Riad H Al NatourDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, 5325 Elliott Dr., Suite #104, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106, USA.
Vincent ObiasDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Jeremy AlbrightDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, 5325 Elliott Dr., Suite #104, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106, USA.
Juan WuDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, 5325 Elliott Dr., Suite #104, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106, USA.
Jane FerraroDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, 5325 Elliott Dr., Suite #104, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106, USA.
Warqaa M AkramDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, 5325 Elliott Dr., Suite #104, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106, USA.
Amanda M McClureDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, 5325 Elliott Dr., Suite #104, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106, USA.
Beth-Ann ShankerDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, 5325 Elliott Dr., Suite #104, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106, USA.
Robert K ClearyDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, 5325 Elliott Dr., Suite #104, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106, USA. Robert.Cleary@stjoeshealth.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6375-7156

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intracorporeal options for sigmoid resection have been recently developed but not extensively evaluated. This study was designed to assess outcomes comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal techniques for robotic-assisted sigmoid resection in an established enhanced recovery pathway. This is a retrospective comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal techniques for robotic-assisted sigmoid resection for benign and malignant disease. Operative technique for the newer intracorporeal innovation is described in detail. Propensity score matching was performed using patient characteristics as predictors in the propensity score model. 169 cases met inclusion criteria. After propensity score matching, 114 cases were available for analysis (intracorporeal 57, extracorporeal 57). Almost 90% were for diverticulitis in each group. There were significantly fewer conversions in the intracorporeal group when compared to the extracorporeal group (5.26% vs. 19.3%, P = 0.029). Operative time was significantly longer in the intracorporeal group (193.33 vs. 159.89 min, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between groups for time to flatus and bowel movements, hospital length of stay, postoperative 30-day complications, and readmission rates. There were significantly fewer extraction site hernias in the intracorporeal group (0 vs. 6 (10.53%), P = 0.027) likely because there were fewer midline extraction sites (8.77% vs. 38.6%, P < 0.001). When compared to extracorporeal techniques for robotic sigmoid resection in an enhanced recovery pathway, the intracorporeal approach is safe and associated with fewer conversions, fewer extraction site hernias, and longer operating times. As adoption of the intracorporeal approach continues to increase, further analysis of this technique in larger studies may be warranted.

Indexed as

Enhanced Recovery After SurgeryPropensity ScoreAgedAnastomosis, SurgicalColon, SigmoidDigestive System Surgical ProceduresDiverticulitis, ColonicFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresOperative TimePatient ReadmissionPostoperative ComplicationsColorectalIntracorporeal anastomosisMinimally invasiveRobotic

Identifiers

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.