Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34338996›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study.

Enda Hannan, Gerard Feeney, Mohammad Fahad Ullah, Claire Ryan, Emma McNamara, David Waldron, Eoghan Condon, John Calvin Coffey, Colin Peirce

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Robotic-assisted right colectomy with the DEXTERTechniques in coloproctology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Enda HannanDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, St Nessan's Road, Dooradoyle Co, Limerick, Ireland. endahannan@rcsi.com.
Gerard FeeneyDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, St Nessan's Road, Dooradoyle Co, Limerick, Ireland.
Mohammad Fahad UllahDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, St Nessan's Road, Dooradoyle Co, Limerick, Ireland.
Claire RyanDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, St Nessan's Road, Dooradoyle Co, Limerick, Ireland.
Emma McNamaraDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, St Nessan's Road, Dooradoyle Co, Limerick, Ireland.
David WaldronDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, St Nessan's Road, Dooradoyle Co, Limerick, Ireland.
Eoghan CondonDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, St Nessan's Road, Dooradoyle Co, Limerick, Ireland.
John Calvin CoffeyDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, St Nessan's Road, Dooradoyle Co, Limerick, Ireland.
Colin PeirceDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, St Nessan's Road, Dooradoyle Co, Limerick, Ireland.
University Hospital Limerick · IEUniversity of Limerick · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current gold standard surgical treatment for right colonic malignancy is the laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH). However, laparoscopic surgery has limitations which can be overcome by robotic surgery. The benefits of robotics for rectal cancer are widely accepted but its use for right hemicolectomy remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) and LRH in a university teaching hospital. Demographic, perioperative and postoperative data along with early oncological outcomes of patients who underwent RRH and LRH with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) were identified from a prospectively maintained database. A total of 70 patients (35 RRH, 35 LRH) were identified over a 4-year period. No statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, 30-day reoperation, 30-day mortality, surgical site infection or lengths of stay were demonstrated. Surgical specimen quality in both groups was favourable. The mean duration of surgery was longer in RRH (p <  < 0.00001). A statistically significant proportion of RRH patients had a higher BMI and ASA grade. The results demonstrate that RRH is safe and feasible when compared to LRH, with no statistical difference in postoperative morbidity, mortality and early oncological outcomes. A difference was noted in operating time, however was influenced by training residents in docking the robot and a technically challenging cohort of patients. Operative time has shortened with further experience. Incorporating an intracorporeal anastomosis technique in RRH offers the potential to improve outcomes compared to LRH.

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsLaparoscopyRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAnastomosis, SurgicalColectomyHumansLength of StayOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesColon cancerLaparoscopic surgeryRight hemicolectomyRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID34338996
PMCPMC9135878
OpenAlexW3189369981

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.