Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31313071›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2020

Robotic versus laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of long-term outcomes.

Oktar Asoglu, Handan Tokmak, Baris Bakir, Vusal Aliyev, Sezer Saglam, Yalın Iscan, Suleyman Bademler, Serhat Meric

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 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer and Cost-Effectiveness.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2019
    Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Oktar AsogluBosphorus Clinical Research Academy, Vişnezade Mah., Acısus Sokak, Salihbey Apt. No:16/D:5. Beşiktaş, Istanbul, Turkey. oktarasoglu@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9147-1654
Handan TokmakDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Acıbadem University Macka Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Baris BakirDepartment of Radiology, Istanbul University Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Vusal AliyevBosphorus Clinical Research Academy, Vişnezade Mah., Acısus Sokak, Salihbey Apt. No:16/D:5. Beşiktaş, Istanbul, Turkey.
Sezer SaglamDepartment of Medical Oncology, Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Yalın IscanDepartment of General Surgery, Istanbul University Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Suleyman BademlerDepartment of General Surgery, Istanbul University Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Serhat MericDepartment of General Surgery, Health Sciences University Bagcılar Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Istanbul University · TRIstanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital · TRAcıbadem University · TRSağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi · TRYahoo (Spain) · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of our study was to compare long term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision (TME) in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer (RC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). The study was conducted as a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database, and we analyzed 14 robotic and 65 laparoscopic sphincter-saving TME (R-TME and L-TME, respectively) performed by one surgeon between 2005 and 2013. Patient characteristics, perioperative recovery, postoperative complications and pathology results were compared between the two groups. The patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Median operating time was longer in the R-TME than in the L-TME group (182 min versus 140 min). Only two conversions occurred in the L-TME group. No difference was found between groups regarding perioperative recovery and postoperative complication rates. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the RTME than in the L-TME group (32 versus 23, p = 0.008). The median circumferential margin (CRM) was 10 mm in the R-TME group, 6.5 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.047. The median distal resection margin (DRM) was 27.5 mm in the R-TME, 15 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.014). Macroscopic grading of the specimen in the R-TME group was complete in all patients. In the L-TME group, grading was complete in 52 (80%) and incomplete in 13 (20%) cases (p = 0.109). Median follow-up 87 months (1-152). Whereas local recurrence was seen in eight cases (10.12%) and distant metastasis was seen in 18 cases (22.7%). Overall, 5 years survival was 83.3% in R-TME, 75% in L-TME groups. R-TME is a safe and feasible procedure that facilitates performing of TME in male patients with mid to low RC after NCRT.

Indexed as

Anal CanalChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantNeoadjuvant TherapyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDigestive System Surgical ProceduresFeasibility StudiesFollow-Up StudiesHumansLaparoscopyMaleMargins of ExcisionMetabolism, Inborn ErrorsMiddle AgedOperative TimeLaparoscopicRectal cancerRoboticSphincter-saving procedureTotal mesorectal excision

Identifiers

PMID31313071
OpenAlexW2959166880

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.