ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Neural Monitoring for Robotic Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.
Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPositioning-related neural injuries are an inherent risk in surgery, particularly in robotic-assisted abdominal wall reconstruction because of unique patient positioning and increased operative times. The implementation of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring should be considered in such cases.
methodsThis was a two-armed study with one prospective intervention group and one retrospective control group. All patients underwent robotic abdominal wall reconstruction at an academic center. The prospective arm underwent robotic reconstruction from January through July 2019. The retrospective database reviewed patients who underwent the same procedure from August 2015 through July 2018. Factors assessed included: demographics (age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities), surgical details (American Society of Anesthesiologists class, procedure, operative time, positioning), outcomes (length of stay, 30-d readmission, reoperation), and any new-onset intraoperative or postoperative neuropathy. Patients were seen in the clinic postoperatively at weeks 1 and 6.
resultsTen patients were included in the prospective arm. All received intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring using somatosensory evoked potentials. They were compared with 47 patients in the retrospective arm who underwent surgery without intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. One position-related neural response from baseline was detected intraoperatively in the prospective arm; however, there were no peripheral neurological symptoms present postoperatively. Two patients in the control group developed transient peripheral neuropathies that resolved within 6 weeks. Demographics, surgical procedures, and length of surgery were similar in both groups. The prospective group had a higher rate of preoperative neuropathy and intraoperative use of vasopressors.
conclusionIncorporation of neurophysiological monitoring in robotic surgery is feasible and may lead to the prevention and reduction in positioning-related injuries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.