Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32002472›Full record

ReviewJournal of the anus, rectum and colon2020

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Operative Technique and Review of the Literature.

Hidetoshi Katsuno, Tsunekazu Hanai, Koji Masumori, Yoshikazu Koide, Keigo Ashida, Hiroshi Matsuoka, Yosuke Tajima, Tomoyoshi Endo, Masahiro Mizuno, Yeongcheol Cheong and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the anus, rectum and colon, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hidetoshi KatsunoDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University, School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan.
Tsunekazu HanaiDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University, School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan.
Koji MasumoriDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University, School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan.
Yoshikazu KoideDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University, School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan.
Keigo AshidaDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University, School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan.
Hiroshi MatsuokaDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University, School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan.
Yosuke TajimaDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University, School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan.
Tomoyoshi EndoDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University, School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan.
Masahiro MizunoDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University, School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan.
Yeongcheol CheongDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University, School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan.
Kotaro MaedaInternational Medical Center, Fujita Health University Hospital, Toyoake, Japan.
Ichiro UyamaDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University, School of Medicine, Toyoake, Japan.
Fujita Health University · JPFujita Health University Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number of patients undergoing robotic surgery for rectal cancer has rapidly increased in Japan, since the government approved the procedure for national insurance coverage in April 2018. Robotic surgery has the potential to overcome some limitations of laparoscopic surgery, especially in the narrow pelvis, providing a three-dimensional view, articulated instruments, and a stable camera platform. Although meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate the superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery with respect to the short-term clinical outcomes, the published findings suggest that robotic surgery may be potentially beneficial for patients who are obese, male, or patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. The safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for lateral lymph node dissection, the standard procedure for locally advanced lower rectal cancer in Japan, have been demonstrated in some retrospective studies. However, additional prospective, randomized trials are required to determine the actual benefits of robotic surgery to ameliorate the urogenital and oncological outcomes. The cost of this approach is a long-standing principal concern. A literature search showed that the cost of robotic surgery for rectal cancer was 1.3-2.5 times higher per patient than that for the laparoscopic approach. We herein describe our surgical technique using a da Vinci Surgical System (S/Si/Xi) with 10 years of experience in performing robotic surgery. We also review current evidence regarding short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes, lateral lymph node dissection, and the cost of the procedure.

Indexed as

Laparoscopic surgeryLateral lymph node dissectionMesorectal excisionMinimally invasive surgeryRectal cancerRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID32002472
PMCPMC6989125
OpenAlexW3003183035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.