ArticleUpdates in surgery2021
Completely intracorporeal anastomosis in robotic left colonic and rectal surgery: technique and 30-day outcomes.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technique and results of novel intracorporeal "overlap" colorectal anastomosis for laparoscopic and robotic surgery.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Observational
- Robotic Rectosigmoid Resection with Totally Intracorporeal Colorectal Anastomosis (TICA) for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Case Series and Description of the Technique.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive left colectomy with total intracorporeal anastomosis versus extracorporeal anastomosis. A single center cohort study. Stage 2b IDEAL framework for evaluating surgical innovation.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- End-to-end stapled technique for Kono-S anastomosis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- Comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in left hemicolectomy: updated meta-analysis of retrospective control trials.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Review
- Surgical site infection after intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic left colectomy for colon cancer: a multicenter propensity score-matched cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Laparoscopic and robotic intracorporeal resection and end-to-end anastomosis in left colectomy: a prospective cohort study - stage 2a IDEAL framework for evaluating surgical innovation.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Observational
- Robotic Anastomotic Technique.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2023Review
- Robotic left-stapled total intracorporeal bowel anastomosis versus stapled partial extracorporeal anastomosis: operative technical description and outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Review
- A novel knotless hand-sewn end-to-end anastomosis using V-loc barbed suture vs. stapled anastomosis in laparoscopic left colonic surgery: A propensity scoring match analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.