Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33972632›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Role of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in colorectal neoplasms.

Hongliang Yao, Tiegang Li, Weidong Chen, Sanlin Lei, Kuijie Liu, Bo Liu, Jiangjiao Zhou

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hongliang YaoDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410011, China.
Tiegang LiDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410011, China.
Weidong ChenDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410011, China.
Sanlin LeiDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410011, China.
Kuijie LiuDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410011, China.
Bo LiuDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410011, China.
Jiangjiao ZhouDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410011, China. zhoujiangjiao@csu.edu.cn.
Central South University · CNSecond Xiangya Hospital of Central South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is especially suitable for colorectal surgery. Until now, most of the reports published were about laparoscopic NOSES, the reports about robotic NOSES are extremely rare. This study aims to explore the safety and feasibility of robotic NOSES for colorectal neoplasms. All patients underwent robotic NOSES from March 2016 to October 2019 in our hospital were enrolled for retrospective analysis. Clinicopathological data including patient characteristics, perioperative information and pathological information were collected and analyzed. According to the distance between tumor and anus or whether neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nRCT) is performed, we grouped the cases and studied its influence on robotic NOSES. Also, we compared the previous reports on laparoscopic NOSES with our study and revealed advantages of robotic NOSES in terms of safety and feasibility. A total of 180 patients were enrolled. The average distance from the lower edge of the tumor to the anus was (8.64 ± 3.64) cm and maximum circumferential diameter (CDmax) of specimen was (3.5 ± 1.6) cm. In terms of safety, the average operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay were (187.5 ± 78.3) min, (47.4 ± 34) mL, and (11.3 ± 7.5) days, respectively. In terms of feasibility, the average number of lymph node harvested was (14.8 ± 5). Robotic NOSES shows advantages in terms of safety and feasibility compared with laparoscopic NOSES. This procedure could not only be a safe procedure but also could achieve good oncological outcomes.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnal CanalBlood Loss, SurgicalColorectal NeoplasmsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical Procedures

Identifiers

PMID33972632
PMCPMC8110763
OpenAlexW3115363700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.