Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34743288›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022

Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery in elderly patients in terms of recovery time: a monocentric experience.

Giuseppe Palomba, Vincenza Paola Dinuzzi, Marianna Capuano, Pietro Anoldo, Marco Milone, Giovanni Domenico De Palma, Giovanni Aprea

Open access · bronzeAbstract 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 18 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Giuseppe PalombaDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University of Naples, Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy. giuseppepalomba3@virgilio.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3954-5166
Vincenza Paola DinuzziDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University of Naples, Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Marianna CapuanoDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University of Naples, Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Pietro AnoldoDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University of Naples, Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Marco MiloneDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University of Naples, Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Giovanni Domenico De PalmaDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University of Naples, Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Giovanni ApreaDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University of Naples, Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
University of Naples Federico II · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer has a great socio-sanitary relevance. It represents the third cancer by incidence and mortality. Ageing plays a major role in the development of colorectal cancer and this tumour, in patients aged 65 and older, has gradually increased over the past decade. The robotic technique is considered the evolution of conventional laparoscopy. Few studies evaluate the effects of robotic surgery in elderly patient, and even fewer are those that compare it with laparoscopic surgery in this population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery compared to laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients older than 65 years. We conducted a retrospective study enrolling 83 elderly patients (age > 65) undergoing robotic and laparoscopic colectomy (32 and 51, respectively) between January 2019 and January 2021. For statistical analysis, p values were calculated using t test and chi-square test. p < 0.05 is the criterion for statistical significance. Statistical analyses were performed with the Number Cruncher Statistical System (NCSS) 2020 data analysis version 20.0.1 (Utah, USA). The operation time was higher in robotic left (p = 0.003, mean time 249.6 vs 211.7 min) and right (p = 0.004, mean time 238.5 vs 183.5 min) hemicolectomy and similar for procedures on rectosigmoid and rectum when compared to laparoscopic technique. In terms of length of hospital stay and recovery of bowel function, these values were significantly lower for robotic group in left hemicolectomy (p = 0.004), rectum (p = 0.003) and rectosigmoid (p = 0.003), while right hemicolectomy was similar in two groups (p = 0.26). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding conversion rate, postoperative complications, length of specimen, number of lymph nodes encountered and oncological results. Colorectal robotic surgery in elderly patients appears as a feasible and safe surgical approach when compared to the laparoscopic one, showing a shorter recovery and a reduction of length of stay with similar oncological outcomes even if with an increase of operating times.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsColorectal SurgeryLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedColectomyHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeColorectal cancerColorectal surgeryElderlyLaparoscopic surgeryOncology surgeryRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID34743288
PMCPMC8572529
OpenAlexW3211643492

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.