Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33993462›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2021

Completely intracorporeal anastomosis in robotic left colonic and rectal surgery: technique and 30-day outcomes.

Pietro Achilli, William Perry, Fabian Grass, Mohamed A Abd El Aziz, Scott R Kelley, David W Larson, Kevin T Behm

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. End-to-end stapled technique for Kono-S anastomosis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Robotic Anastomotic Technique.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2023
    Review
  9. Review
  10. 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.

Pietro AchilliDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9021-9521
William PerryDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Fabian GrassDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Mohamed A Abd El AzizDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Scott R KelleyDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
David W LarsonDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Kevin T BehmDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. Behm.kevin@mayo.edu.
Mayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As robotic surgery continues to disseminate into the field of colon and rectal surgery, there is a growing interest in the utilization of intracorporeal anastomosis to potentially improve surgical outcomes. The purpoe of this study was to compare feasibility, safety, and short-term outcomes of robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections performed with completely intracorporeal anastomosis (CICA) technique to the traditional extracorporeal assisted anastomosis (ECAA) technique. Consecutive series of patients who underwent elective robotic sigmoid or low anterior resections for benign or malignant disease utilizes either CICA or ECAA between August 2017 and November 2019. Surgical complications were assessed until 30 postoperative days and compared between the two groups. A total of 160 patients were identified; 73 (45.6%) in the CICA group and 87 (54.4%) in the ECAA group. Most of the procedures were performed for malignancy (76%). Estimated blood loss was lower in the CICA group (80.7 mL vs. 110.2 mL; p = 0.048), while operative times were longer (5.9 ± SD hours vs. 4.9 ± SD hours; p =  < 0.001). Overall conversion rate was 1.9%, with no conversions in the CICA group. Overall complications occurred in 54 patients (33.8%) with 13 (8.3%) representing major complications. There were no significant differences in 30 day outcomes between the two groups. This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections with CICA. Outcomes for robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections are encouraging regardless of anastomotic technique (CICA vs ECAA).

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAnastomosis, SurgicalColectomyColonHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeColorectal surgeryExtracorporeal anastomosisIntracorporeal anastomosisRobotic surgeryShort-term outcomes

Identifiers

PMID33993462
OpenAlexW3160843580

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.