Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31712874›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2019

The impact of robotic total mesorectal excision on survival of patients with rectal cancer-a propensity matched analysis.

P Tejedor, F Sagias, K Flashman, Yeh Han Lee, S Naqvi, N Kandala, Jim Khan

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Urogenital dysfunction in patients after miniinvasive restorative low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Role of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

P TejedorDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Southwick Hill Road, Cosham, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8648-7697
F SagiasDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Southwick Hill Road, Cosham, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK.
K FlashmanDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Southwick Hill Road, Cosham, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK.
Yeh Han LeeDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Southwick Hill Road, Cosham, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK.
S NaqviDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Southwick Hill Road, Cosham, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK.
N KandalaFaculty of Sciences, School of Health Sciences & Social Work, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
Jim KhanDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Southwick Hill Road, Cosham, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK. mkhan702@aol.com.
Queen Alexandra Hospital · GBUniversity of Portsmouth · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRobotic surgery can overcome some limitations of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME), improving the quality of the surgery. We aim to compare the medium-term oncological outcomes of L-TME vs. robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) for rectal cancer.

methodsA retrospective analysis was performed including patients who underwent L-TME or R-TME between 2011 and 2017. Patients presenting with metastatic disease or R1 resection were excluded. From a total of 680 patients, 136 cases of R-TME were matched based on age, gender, stage and time of follow-up with an equal number of patients who underwent L-TME. We compared 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

resultsMajor complications were lower in the robotic group (13.2% vs. 22.8%, p = 0.04), highlighting the anastomotic leakage rate (7.4% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.01). The 3-year DFS rate for all stages was 69% for L-TME and 84% for R-TME (p = 0.02). For disease stage III, the 3-year DFS was significantly higher in the R-TME group. OS was also significantly superior in the robotic group for every stage, reaching 86% in stage III. In the multivariate analysis, R-TME was a significant positive prognostic factor for distant metastasis (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.1, 0.6, p = 0.001) and OS (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.07, 0.4, p = 0.000). Moreover, major complications were also found to have a negative impact on OS (OR 8.3 95% CI 3.2, 21.6, p = 0.000).

conclusionR-TME for rectal cancer can achieve better oncological outcomes compared with L-TME, especially in stage III rectal cancers. However, a longer follow-up period is needed to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedAged, 80 and overAnastomotic LeakDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPropensity ScoreRectal NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentLaparoscopic surgeryOncologic outcomeRectal cancerRobotic surgerySurvivalTotal mesorectal excision

Identifiers

PMID31712874
OpenAlexW2983988278

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.