Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34098897›Full record

Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2021

Comparison of the operative outcomes and learning curves between laparoscopic and "Micro Hand S" robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a retrospective study.

Yanlei Wang, Guohui Wang, Zheng Li, Hao Ling, Bo Yi, Shaihong Zhu

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04836741 (Comparision of the Outcomes and Learning Curve of Rectectomy for Rectal Cancer Using Diverse Minimally Technologies), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04836741 nacompletednot on this map

Comparision of the Outcomes and Learning Curve of Rectectomy for Rectal Cancer Using Diverse Minimally Technologies: Surgical Robot "Micro Hand S", Laparoscope

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South UniversityRan2015 to 2019Enrolled105ConditionsRectal CancerArmsMicro Hand S robot, Laparoscope
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Yanlei WangDepartment of General Surgery, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Street, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Guohui WangDepartment of General Surgery, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Street, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Zheng LiDepartment of General Surgery, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Street, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Hao LingDepartment of General Surgery, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Street, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Bo YiDepartment of General Surgery, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Street, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China. yibo2018pro@126.com.
Shaihong ZhuDepartment of General Surgery, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Street, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China. 1459082987@qq.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Micro Hand S robot is a new surgical tool that has been applied to total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer in our center. In this study, we compared the operative outcomes, functional outcomes and learning curves of the Micro Hand S robot-assisted TME (RTME) with laparoscopic TME (LTME).

methodsA total of 40 patients who underwent RTME and 65 who underwent LTME performed by a single surgeon between July 2015 and November 2018 were included in this retrospective study. Clinicopathologic characteristics, operative and functional outcomes, and learning curves were compared between the two groups. The learning curve was analyzed using the cumulative sum method and two stages (Phase 1, Phase 2) were identified and analyzed. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months.

resultsThe clinicopathologic characteristics of the two groups were similar. The learning curve was 17 cases for RTME and 34 cases for LTME. Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with less blood loss (148.2 vs. 195.0 ml, p = 0.022), and shorter length of hospital stay (9.5 vs. 12.2 days, p = 0.017), even during the learning period. With the accumulation of experience, the operative time decreased significantly from Phase 1 to Phase 2 (RTME, 360.6 vs. 323.5 min, p = 0.009; LTME, 338.1 vs. 301.9 min, p = 0.005), whereas other outcomes did not differ significantly.

conclusionsMicro Hand S robot-assisted TME is safe and feasible even during the learning period, with outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery but superior in terms of blood loss, length of hospital stay, and learning curve. Trial registration Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT04836741, retrospectively registered on 5 April 2021.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRectal NeoplasmsRoboticsHumansLearning CurveOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic surgeryMicro Hand S surgical robot systemRectal cancerRobotic surgeryTotal mesorectal excision

Identifiers

PMID34098897
PMCPMC8186043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.