Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31262302›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2019

A standardized suprapubic bottom-to-up approach in robotic right colectomy: technical and oncological advances for complete mesocolic excision (CME).

Jan Schulte Am Esch, Sergio-I Iosivan, Fabian Steinfurth, Ammar Mahdi, Christine Förster, Ludwig Wilkens, Alaa Nasser, Hülya Sarikaya, Tahar Benhidjeb, Martin Krüger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jan Schulte Am EschCenter of Visceral Medicine, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Center of Visceral Medicine, Protestant Hospital of Bethel Foundation, Schildescher Str. 99, Bielefeld, Germany. jan.schulteamesch@evkb.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2101-5012
Sergio-I IosivanCenter of Visceral Medicine, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Center of Visceral Medicine, Protestant Hospital of Bethel Foundation, Schildescher Str. 99, Bielefeld, Germany.
Fabian SteinfurthCenter of Visceral Medicine, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Center of Visceral Medicine, Protestant Hospital of Bethel Foundation, Schildescher Str. 99, Bielefeld, Germany.
Ammar MahdiCenter of Visceral Medicine, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Center of Visceral Medicine, Protestant Hospital of Bethel Foundation, Schildescher Str. 99, Bielefeld, Germany.
Christine FörsterInstitute of Pathology, KRH Clinic Nordstadt, Hannover, Germany.
Ludwig WilkensInstitute of Pathology, KRH Clinic Nordstadt, Hannover, Germany.
Alaa NasserCenter of Visceral Medicine, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Center of Visceral Medicine, Protestant Hospital of Bethel Foundation, Schildescher Str. 99, Bielefeld, Germany.
Hülya SarikayaCenter of Visceral Medicine, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Center of Visceral Medicine, Protestant Hospital of Bethel Foundation, Schildescher Str. 99, Bielefeld, Germany.
Tahar BenhidjebCenter of Visceral Medicine, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Center of Visceral Medicine, Protestant Hospital of Bethel Foundation, Schildescher Str. 99, Bielefeld, Germany.
Martin KrügerCenter of Visceral Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Protestant Hospital of Bethel Foundation, Bielefeld, Germany.
KRH Klinikum Nordstadt · DEBethel University · USEvangelisches Krankenhaus Bielefeld · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backroundSeveral studies have demonstrated a direct correlation between lymph node yield and survival after colectomy for cancer. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) in right colectomy (RC) reduces local recurrence but is technically demanding. Here we report our early single center experience with robotic right colectomy comparing our standardized bottom-to-up (BTU) approach of robotic RC with CME and central vessel ligation (CVL) facilitated by a suprapubic access with the "classical" medial-to-lateral (MTL) strategy.

methodsA 4-step BTU approach of robotic RC guided by embryonal planes in the process of retrocolic mobilization with suprapubic port placement was performed in the BTU-group (n = 24; all with intention to treat cancer). In step 1 CME was initiated with caudolateral mobilization of the right colon guided by the fascia of Toldt across the duodenum and up to the Trunk of Henle. Subsequently, dissection was performed BTU right of the middle supramesenteric vessels with central ileocolic vessel ligation in step 2. Subsequent to separation of the transverse retromesenteric space and completion of mobilization the hepatic flexure in step 3, the transverse mesocolon was then transected right of the middle colic vessels in step 4. An extracorporeal side to side anastomosis was performed. We compared the outcome of the BTU-group with a MTL-group (n = 7).

resultsPatient characteristics like age, gender, BMI, comorbidity (ASA) and M-status were comparable among groups. There was no conversion. Overall complication rate was 35.5%. We experienced no anastomoses insufficiency, grade Dindo/Clavien III/IV complication or mortality in this study. Type I and II complications and surgical characteristics incl. OR-time, ICU- and hospital-stay were comparable between the two groups. However, the lymph node yield was superior in the BTU-group (mean 40.2 ± 17.1) when compared with the MTL-group (16,3 nodes ±8.5; p <  0,001).

conclusionsCompared to the classical MTL approach, robotic suprapubic BTU RC changes from a search of the layers bordering the oncological dissection to a consequent utilization of the planes as a retro-mesocolic guide during CME. The BTU strategy could bear the potential to increase the lymph node yield. Robotic systems may provide the technical requirements to combine advantages of both open and minimally invasive RC.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overColectomyColonic NeoplasmsDissectionFemaleHumansLength of StayLigationLymph NodesMaleMesocolonRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical ProceduresColon carcinomaComplete mesocolic excisionLaparoscopyLymph nodesRight colectomyRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID31262302
PMCPMC6604440
OpenAlexW2955872841

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.