Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33523275›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

Comparison of transanal total mesorectal excision and robotic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Jung Kyong Shin, Hee Cheol Kim, Seong Hyeon Yun, Yoon Ah Park, Yong Beom Cho, Jung Wook Huh, Woo Yong Lee

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jung Kyong ShinDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Korea.
Hee Cheol KimDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Korea. hckimcrc@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1610-5363
Seong Hyeon YunDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Korea.
Yoon Ah ParkDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Korea.
Yong Beom ChoDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Korea.
Jung Wook HuhDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Korea.
Woo Yong LeeDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Korea.
Samsung Medical Center · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo improve the quality of surgery for rectal cancer, both transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) can be performed. However, few studies have compared outcomes of taTME and R-TME, especially for patients with low rectal cancer after undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT). Thus, the objective of this study was to compare outcomes of taTME and R-TME for patients with low rectal cancer after undergoing nCRT.

methodsA total of 306 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer who underwent taTME or R-TME after nCRT between 2008 and 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were classified into two groups: 1) taTME surgery group (n = 94); and 2) R-TME surgery group (n = 212).

resultsClinicopathologic variables were comparable between the two groups. There was no significant difference in circumference margin involvement (1.1% in taTME vs. 2.8% in R-TME, p = 0.680) or distal resection margin (2.3 cm in taTME vs. 2.4 cm in R-TME, p = 0.629). Total operation time (239 min in taTME vs. 243 min in R-TME, p = 0.675) and major complications (including anastomosis site leakage, surgical site infection, and voiding difficulty) showed no significant difference between the two groups either.

conclusionsTransanal and robotic TMEs have similar short-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer after undergoing nCRT. High quality TME can be equally achieved with both transanal and robotic approaches.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresTransanal Endoscopic SurgeryHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyPostoperative ComplicationsRectumRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapyRectal cancerRobotic TMETotal mesorectal excisionTransanal TME

Identifiers

PMID33523275
OpenAlexW3127618881

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.