Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30900153›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2020

Short- and intermediate-term clinical outcome comparison between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted median arcuate ligament release.

Usah Khrucharoen, Yen-Yi Juo, Yijun Chen, Juan C Jimenez, Erik P Dutson

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Robotic Surgery for Median Arcuate Ligament Syndrome.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    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

5 authors.

Usah KhrucharoenUCLA Section of Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, BOX 956904, 72-239 CHS, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3585-5063
Yen-Yi JuoUCLA Section of Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, BOX 956904, 72-239 CHS, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Yijun ChenUCLA Section of Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, BOX 956904, 72-239 CHS, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Juan C JimenezDivision of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Erik P DutsonUCLA Section of Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, BOX 956904, 72-239 CHS, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. edutson@mednet.ucla.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While laparoscopic median arcuate ligament (MAL) release remains the most common approach, robotic-assisted MAL release has been increasingly performed by several institutions. This study aims to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted MAL release. This is a retrospective study of patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted MAL release in a teaching hospital from January 1999 to December 2018. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes as well as short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. A total of 16 laparoscopic and 18 robotic cases were included. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between the two comparison groups. Median operative time was shorter in the robotic group [179.5 (IQR 127.3-225) vs. 106 (IQR 80.8-122.8) minutes; p < 0.001]. The rates of conversion to open operation were similar in both groups (6.3% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.99). Conversions to laparotomy were performed due to bleeding and extensive adhesions in one laparoscopic case and due to technical difficulties in a patient with narrow body habitus in the robotic group. Postoperative complication rates were similar (12.5% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.99), all in grade I and II. Complete pain resolution rates (37.5% vs. 44.4%, p = 0.93), symptom recurrence rates (37.5% vs. 27.8%, p = 0.93), and overall clinical improvement at last follow-up (87.5% vs. 77.8%, p = 0.66) were not statistically different. Both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted MAL release offer similar short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes. A shortened operative time may be achieved by incorporating the robot platform.

Indexed as

HumansLaparoscopyMedian Arcuate Ligament SyndromeRobotic Surgical ProceduresTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic procedureMedian arcuate ligament releaseOutcome comparisonRobotic-assisted procedure

Identifiers

PMID30900153

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.