ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2019
A propensity score matched comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal techniques for robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy in an enhanced recovery pathway.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early outcomes after adopting robotic intracorporeal anastomosis for right hemicolectomy - a propensity-weighted analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic Rectosigmoid Resection with Totally Intracorporeal Colorectal Anastomosis (TICA) for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Case Series and Description of the Technique.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive left colectomy with total intracorporeal anastomosis versus extracorporeal anastomosis. A single center cohort study. Stage 2b IDEAL framework for evaluating surgical innovation.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- Comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in left hemicolectomy: updated meta-analysis of retrospective control trials.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Review
- Robotic-assisted intracorporeal versus extracorporeal techniques in sigmoidectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Health-care expenditures are less for minimally invasive than open colectomy for colon cancer: A US commercial claims database analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Anastomotic Considerations in Diverticulitis.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2023Review
- Robotic Anastomotic Technique.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2023Review
- A national database propensity score-matched comparison of minimally invasive and open colectomy for long-term opioid use.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- The art of robotic colonic resection: a review of progress in the past 5 years.Updates in surgery · 2021Review
- Intracorporeal anastomosis versus extracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive colectomy.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
30536133What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.