Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31637603›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020

The volume-outcome relationship in robotic protectectomy: does center volume matter? Results of a national cohort study.

Seth J Concors, Douglas R Murken, Paul T Hernandez, Najjia N Mahmoud, E Carter Paulson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Seth J ConcorsDepartment of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 4 Maloney, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. Seth.Concors@uphs.upenn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3918-3954
Douglas R MurkenDepartment of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 4 Maloney, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Paul T HernandezDepartment of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 4 Maloney, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Najjia N MahmoudDepartment of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 4 Maloney, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
E Carter PaulsonDepartment of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 4 Maloney, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUtilization of robotic proctectomy (RP) for rectal cancer has steadily increased since the inception of robotic surgery in 2002. Randomized control trials evaluating the safety of RP are in process to better understand the role of robotic assistance in proctectomy. This study aimed to characterize the trends in the use of RP for rectal cancer, and to compare oncologic outcomes with center-level RP volume. MATERIALS AND

methods8107 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent RP were identified in the National Cancer Database (2010-2015). Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between center-level volume and conversion to open proctectomy, margin status, lymph node yield, 30- and 90-day post-operative mortality, and overall survival.

resultsThe utilization of RP increased from 2010 to 2015. On multivariate regression, lower center-level volume of RP was associated with significantly higher rates of conversion to open, positive margins, inadequate lymph node harvest (≥ 12), and lower overall survival. The present study was limited by its retrospective design and lack of information regarding disease-specific survival.

conclusionsThis series suggests a volume-outcome relationship association; patients who have robot-assisted proctectomies performed at low-volume centers are more likely to have poorer overall survival, positive margins, inadequate lymph node harvest, and require conversion to open surgery. While these data demonstrate the increased adoption of robot-assisted proctectomy, an understanding of the appropriateness of this intervention is still lacking. As with any new intervention, further information from ongoing randomized controlled trials is needed to better clarify the role of RP in order to optimize patient outcomes.

Indexed as

ProctectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisRectal NeoplasmsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeProctectomyRectal adenocarcinomaRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID31637603
OpenAlexW2981886568

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.