ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2021
Defining benchmarks for robotic-assisted low anterior rectum resection in low-morbid patients: a multicenter analysis.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- ColoRobotica: Structured training in robotic colorectal surgery.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- Parallel, component training in robotic total mesorectal excision.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- [Robots in visceral and thoracic surgery-Quo vadis?]Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Right colectomy from open to robotic - a single-center experience with functional outcomes in a learning-curve setting.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Article
- C-Reactive Protein as Predictor for Infectious Complications after Robotic and Open Esophagectomies.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo define the best possible outcomes for robotic-assisted low anterior rectum resection (RLAR) using total mesorectal excision (TME) in low-morbid patients, performed by expert robotic surgeons in German robotic centers. The benchmark values were derived from these results.
methodsThe data was retrospectively collected from five German expert centers. After patient exclusion (prior surgery, extended surgery, no prior anastomosis, hand-sewn anastomosis), the benchmark cohort was defined (n = 226). The median with interquartile range was first calculated for the individual centers. The 75th percentile of the median results was defined as the benchmark cutoff and represents the "perfect" achievable outcome. This applied to all benchmark values apart from lymph node yield, where the cutoff was defined as the 25th percentile (more lymph nodes are better).
resultsThe benchmark values for conversion and intraoperative complication rates were ≤ 4.0% and ≤ 1.4%, respectively. For postoperative complications, the benchmark was ≤ 28% for "any" and ≤ 18.0% for major complications. The R0 and complete TME rate benchmarks were both 100%, with a lymph node yield of > 18. The benchmark for rate of anastomotic insufficiency was < 12.5% and 90-day mortality was 0%. Readmission rates should not exceed 4%.
conclusionThis outcome analysis of patients with low comorbidity undergoing RLAR may serve as a reference to evaluate surgical performance in robotic rectum resection.
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.