Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35305181›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2022

Robotic colorectal surgery using the Senhance

N E Samalavicius, A Dulskas, V Janusonis, V Klimasauskiene, V Eismontas, O Deduchovas, T Janusonis, R Markelis, E Smolskas

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. [Application and research progress of artificial intelligence technology in trauma treatment].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2023
    Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

9 authors.

N E SamalaviciusDepartment of Surgery, Klaipeda University Hospital, 41 Liepojos Str, LT-92288, Klaipeda, Lithuania.
A DulskasClinic of Internal, Family Medicine and Oncology, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania. audrius.dulskas@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3692-8962
V JanusonisDepartment of Surgery, Klaipeda University Hospital, 41 Liepojos Str, LT-92288, Klaipeda, Lithuania.
V KlimasauskieneDeraptament of Surgery, Republican Vilnius University Hospital, Vilnius, Lithuania.
V EismontasDepartment of Surgery, Klaipeda University Hospital, 41 Liepojos Str, LT-92288, Klaipeda, Lithuania.
O DeduchovasDepartment of Surgery, Klaipeda University Hospital, 41 Liepojos Str, LT-92288, Klaipeda, Lithuania.
T JanusonisDepartment of Pathology, Forensic Medicine and Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
R MarkelisDepartment of Surgery, Hospital of Oncology of Lithuanian, University of Health Sciences Kaunas Clinics, Kaunas, Lithuania.
E SmolskasDepartment of Surgery, Vilnius City Clinical Hospital, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the initial experience of a single robotic center with the Senhance

methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent colorectal surgery using the Senhance

resultsThere were 57 patients (28 women and 29 men, mean age 61.7 ± 6.2 years [range 23-84 years]). Forty-eight (84.2%) patients underwent surgery for colorectal cancer (22 colon cancer and 26 rectal cancer) and 9 (15.8%) for benign conditions. Mean operating time was 194 min ± 57.8 min (range 90-380 min). In total, 27(47.4%) operations were performed on the colon and 30 (52.6%) on the rectum; mean length of postoperative hospital stay was 8 ± 6.2 days (range 3-48 days). There were 2 (3.4%) conversions to open surgery. No intraoperative complications occurred. Seven patients (12.3%) had postoperative complications 3 (5.3%) of whom had to be treated under general anesthesia. There was no mortality. In 48 patients operated on for colorectal cancer, the mean lymph-node harvest was 18 ± 7.9 (range 7-38 lymph nodes). In the rectal cancer group of 26 patients, the distal resection margin was 3.3 ± 1.8 cm.

conclusionsIn our experience, surgery using the new Senhance

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsColorectal SurgeryLaparoscopyRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultColorectal surgeryMinimally invasive surgeryRobotic surgerySenhance® robotic system

Identifiers

PMID35305181

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.