Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33638109›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

The impact of surgical approach on short- and long-term outcomes after rectal cancer resection in elderly patients: a national cancer database propensity score matched comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches.

Michael L Horsey, Salvatore A Parascandola, Andrew D Sparks, Salini Hota, Matthew Ng, Vincent Obias

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Low anterior resection syndrome: can it be prevented?International journal of colorectal disease · 2021
    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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Michael L HorseyWalter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA. Michael.horsey1@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-0939-3539
Salvatore A ParascandolaWalter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Andrew D SparksDepartment of Surgery, George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates, Washington, DC, USA.
Salini HotaEastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Matthew NgDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
Vincent ObiasDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
George Washington University Hospital · USWalter Reed National Military Medical Center · USEastern Virginia Medical School · USGeorge Washington University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElderly patients are underrepresented in studies demonstrating the advantages of laparoscopy for the management of colorectal diseases. Moreover, few studies have examined the robotic approach in this population. In this retrospective analysis, we compare outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches in elderly patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer.

methodsThe U.S. National Cancer Database was queried for patients aged ≥ 65 with nonmetastatic adenocarcinoma of the rectum who underwent surgical resection from 2010 to 2016. Groups were separated based on approach (open, laparoscopic, robotic). One-to-one nearest neighbor propensity score matching (PSM) ± 1% caliper was performed across surgical approach cohorts to balance potential confounding covariates. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze the primary outcome of survival. Secondary outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression.

resultsInclusion criteria and PSM identified 1891 patients per approach (n = 5673). PSM provided adequate discrimination between cohorts (0.6 < AUC < 0.8), and potential confounding covariates did not significantly differ (respective P > 0.05). After PSM, robotic and laparoscopic approaches were associated with decreased odds of 90 day mortality compared to the open approach (P < 0.05). Compared to laparoscopy, a robotic approach was associated with increased odds of ≥ 12 regional lymph nodes examined and negative circumferential resection margin (P < 0.05). No differences were seen in 30 day or 90 day mortality between robotic and laparoscopic approaches. Cox proportional hazards regression showed that both robotic and laparoscopic approaches were significantly associated with decreased mortality hazards relative to open.

conclusionOur study demonstrates that in elderly patients, minimally invasive surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma was associated with equivalent or improved short- and long-term mortality over open surgery. Compared to laparoscopy, the robotic approach showed no survival disadvantage and greater odds of an appropriate oncological resection. Our study adds evidence to the conclusion that robotic rectal surgery can be safely performed in patients regardless of age.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedHumansPropensity ScoreRectumRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeCancerLaparoscopic surgeryRectumRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID33638109
OpenAlexW3129870632

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.