Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33760973›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

Emergent robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for perforated gastrojejunal ulcers: a retrospective cohort study of 44 patients.

Tyler D Robinson, Jordan C Sheehan, Pooja B Patel, Andrew G Marthy, Jessica A Zaman, Tejinder Paul Singh

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 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tyler D RobinsonDepartment of Surgery, Albany Medical Center, 43 New Scotland Avenue, Albany, NY, 12208, USA. robinst8@amc.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9945-5598
Jordan C SheehanAlbany Medical College, 43 New Scotland Avenue, Albany, NY, 12208, USA.
Pooja B PatelDepartment of Surgery, Albany Medical Center, 43 New Scotland Avenue, Albany, NY, 12208, USA.
Andrew G MarthyDepartment of Surgery, Albany Medical Center, 43 New Scotland Avenue, Albany, NY, 12208, USA.
Jessica A ZamanDepartment of Surgery, Albany Medical Center, 43 New Scotland Avenue, Albany, NY, 12208, USA.
Tejinder Paul SinghDepartment of Surgery, Albany Medical Center, 43 New Scotland Avenue, Albany, NY, 12208, USA.
Albany Medical Center Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerforated gastrojejunal ulcers are a known complication following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery requiring emergent surgical repair. The robotic approach has not been evaluated for emergency general surgery.

methodsA retrospective cohort study from 2015 to 2019 was performed identifying all patients who underwent repair of perforated gastrojejunal ulcers after RYGB at a single institution. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared by robotic or laparoscopic approach.

resultsOf the 44 patients analyzed, there were 24 robotic and 20 laparoscopic repairs of perforated gastrojejunal ulcers. No patients were initially approached with open surgery. In-room-to-surgery-start time was significantly faster in the robotic group than the laparoscopic group (25 versus 31 min, p = 0.01). Complication rate, complication severity, operating time, hospital length of stay, postoperative vasopressor requirement, discharge to home, hospital length of stay and 30-day readmission were all improved in the robotic group, although these were not statistically significant. Both total inpatient and procedural costs were more in the robotic group than the laparoscopic group.

conclusionPerforated hollow viscus is not a contraindication for the use of the surgical robot, which may improve outcomes.

Indexed as

Gastric BypassLaparoscopyObesity, MorbidRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUlcerBariatric surgeryEmergency surgeryIntestinal perforationPerforated viscusRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID33760973
OpenAlexW3138099971

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.