Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35147841›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022

Assessing the role of robotic proctectomy in obese patients: a contemporary NSQIP analysis.

Alexa C Glencer, Joseph A Lin, Karen Trang, Anya Greenberg, Kimberly S Kirkwood, Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam, Ankit Sarin

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 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. 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.

Alexa C GlencerDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Joseph A LinDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Karen TrangDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Anya GreenbergSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Kimberly S KirkwoodDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Mohamed Abdelgadir AdamDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Ankit SarinDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. ankit.sarin@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5671-2267
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Surgical Oncology Training GrantT32CA251070 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ESSERMAN, LAURA J · 2020 to 2024
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA251070
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic proctectomy has become increasingly popular for both benign and malignant indications. The purpose of this study was to determine if the robotic approach has a distinct advantage over laparoscopy in obese patients, which has been suggested by previous subgroup analyses. We performed a retrospective review of 2016-2018 National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data to compare outcomes between patients who underwent robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy, stratified by Body Mass Index (BMI) subgroups. We also compared outcomes of converted minimally invasive proctectomy to planned open operations. Four thousand four hundred eighteen (69.3%) patients underwent laparoscopic proctectomy, and 1956 (30.7%) patients underwent robotic proctectomy. Robotic proctectomy was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopic proctectomy (5.1% vs 12.3%; p = 0.002), and this relationship was maintained on an adjusted model. Obese (BMI > 30) patients were more likely to require conversion in both laparoscopic and robotic groups with the greatest difference in the conversion rate in the obese subgroup. Patients who underwent conversion had higher composite morbidity compared to patients who underwent planned open operations (50.8% vs 41.3%; p < 0.001). And among patients with rectal cancer, robotic proctectomy was associated with a greater incidence of positive radial tumor margins compared to laparoscopic proctectomy (8.0% vs 6.4%; p = 0.039), driven primarily by the obese subgroup. Our study demonstrates that robotic proctectomy is associated with a 7% lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopy and that obese patients are more likely to require conversion than non-obese patients. Among obese patients with rectal cancer, we identified an increased risk of positive radial margins with robotic compared to laparoscopic proctectomy.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyProctectomyRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansMargins of ExcisionObesityPostoperative ComplicationsQuality ImprovementRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeConversionNSQIPObese patientsRobotic proctectomy

Identifiers

PMID35147841
PMCPMC9365884
OpenAlexW4210998155

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.