Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30693389›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019

The oncological and surgical safety of robot-assisted surgery in colorectal cancer: outcomes of a longitudinal prospective cohort study.

F Polat, L H Willems, K Dogan, C Rosman

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC 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 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Simultaneous Robot Assisted Colon and Liver Resection for Metastatic Colon Cancer.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Early experience with the ARTISENTIALTechniques in coloproctology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

F PolatDepartment of surgery, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
L H WillemsDepartment of surgery, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. l.willems@cwz.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-2728-9663
K DoganDepartment of gastro-intestinal and oncologic surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
C RosmanDepartment of gastro-intestinal and oncologic surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS) is a frequently used modality. A new development in minimally invasive surgery is robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACRS).

methodsProspectively collected data of 378 consecutive patients who underwent RACRS or LCRS for stage I-III colorectal cancer from Dec 2014 to Oct 2017 were analyzed. Primary outcome was oncological outcome (radical margins, number of retrieved lymph nodes, locoregional recurrence). Secondary outcomes were distant metastases, overall and disease-free survival, operation time, conversion, length of hospital stay, and intra- and post-operative complications.

results206 RACRS (129 colon and 77 rectal) and 172 LCRS (138 colon and 34 rectal) procedures were included. Baseline characteristics were similar. Overall median follow-up time was 15 months (0.2-36). Oncological outcome was similar. In colon cancer, radical margins were achieved in 99.3% in RACRS group versus 98.6% in LCRS group (p = 0.60), the average number of harvested lymph nodes was 16 ± 6 versus 18 ± 7 (p = 0.16), and locoregional recurrence rate in 24 months was 3.8% vs 3.8% (p = 0.99), respectively. In rectal cancer, radical margins were achieved in 89.6% in RACRS group versus 94.3% in LCRS group (p = 0.42), the average number of harvested lymph nodes was 16 ± 8 versus 15 ± 4 (p = 0.51), and locoregional recurrence rate in 24 months was 9.5 versus 5.6% (p = 0.42), respectively. Incidence of metastasis, survival rates, operation time, length of hospital stay, and number of severe post-operative complications measured by Clavien-Dindo scores did not differ between RACRS and LCRS groups. Conversion and intra-operative complication rates were significantly lower in the RACRS group as compared to the LCRS group (3% vs 9%, p = 0.008 and 2% vs 8%, p = 0.003, respectively).

conclusionRACRS is safe in the treatment of patients with stage I-III colorectal cancer. Oncological outcome did not differ between RACRS and LCRS groups. RACRS had lower conversion and intra-operative complication rates.

Indexed as

AgedColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceIntraoperative ComplicationsLength of StayMaleMargins of ExcisionNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingNetherlandsOperative TimeColorectal cancerDaVinci XiLaparoscopic surgeryOncological safetyRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID30693389
PMCPMC6795614
OpenAlexW2912275011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.