Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32725327›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2021

Robotic ileocolic resection with intracorporeal anastomosis for Crohn's disease.

H Hande Aydinli, Marissa Anderson, Amanda Hambrecht, Mitchell A Bernstein, Alexis L Grucela

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. The future of robotic surgery for inflammatory bowel diseases.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

H Hande AydinliDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, New York University Langone Health, 530 First Ave Suite 7V, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Marissa AndersonDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, New York University Langone Health, 530 First Ave Suite 7V, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Amanda HambrechtDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, New York University Langone Health, 530 First Ave Suite 7V, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Mitchell A BernsteinDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, New York University Langone Health, 530 First Ave Suite 7V, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Alexis L GrucelaDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, New York University Langone Health, 530 First Ave Suite 7V, New York, NY, 10016, USA. alexisgrucela@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9932-7115
NYU Langone Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The robotic platform can overcome limitations of the laparoscopic approach, particularly in the facilitation of intracorporeal anastomosis creation. We aim to share our institutional experience with robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease (CD) and compare it to a laparoscopic cohort. We identified patients who underwent ileocolic resection for CD with a purely robotic (R) or laparoscopic (L) approach between February 2015 and 2018. Chart review was performed and preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data was collected. A total of 47 patients with a mean age of 35.2 years old were identified and 61% were female. Seventy percent [n = 33, (23 females, 69.6%)] of the cases were performed robotically and 30% of the cases [n = 14, (6 females, 42.8%)] were performed laparoscopically. The groups were well matched for age, gender, BMI as well as disease related factors (CD duration; clinical classification and location), perioperative immunosuppression, and surgical history. Time to bowel function was shorter by about 1 day in the robotic group (R: 1.9 ± 0.88 days vs. L: 2.7 ± 0.8 days, p = 0.003). Mean operative time was longer in the robotic group by 51 min and this difference was significant (p = 0.03), however 30.3% of patients underwent ureteral stent placement, which can account for added time in robotic cases. There were less conversions in the robotic group [R: 1(4.3%) vs. L: 1(7%)], but this was not significant. There were no intraoperative complications in either group. Complication (L: 21.4% vs. R: 15.1%, p = 0.605) and reoperation rates (L: 0% vs. R: 3.03%, p = 0.429) were similar. Robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease is as safe and feasible as the laparoscopic approach. This was accomplished with no leaks, major morbidity or mortality and comparable length of stay, with 1 day shorter return of bowel function, and with a lower overall complication rate. The robotic approach offers advantages in Crohn's disease which should be studied further in prospective studies.

Indexed as

AdultAnastomosis, SurgicalColonCrohn DiseaseDigestive System Surgical ProceduresFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansIleumLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedRobotic Surgical ProceduresSafetyTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultCrohn’s diseaseInflammatory bowel diseaseRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID32725327
OpenAlexW3045865646

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.