Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35650261›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2022

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Leonardo Solaini, Antonio Bocchino, Andrea Avanzolini, Domenico Annunziata, Davide Cavaliere, Giorgio Ercolani

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Anastomotic Leak Following Colorectal Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2026
    Review
  18. Experience with hinotoriJournal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2026
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Leonardo SolainiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. leonardo.solaini2@unibo.it.
Antonio BocchinoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Andrea AvanzoliniGeneral and Oncologic Surgery, Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital, Ausl Romagna, Forlì, Italy.
Domenico AnnunziataGeneral and Oncologic Surgery, Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital, Ausl Romagna, Forlì, Italy.
Davide CavaliereGeneral and Oncologic Surgery, Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital, Ausl Romagna, Forlì, Italy.
Giorgio ErcolaniDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Ospedale G.B. Morgagni - L.Pierantoni · ITUniversity of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy.

methodsA systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates.

resultsAmong the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5-0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3-60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8-0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7-0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8-3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8-1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies.

conclusionsRobotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresColectomyHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsColorectal surgeryLaparoscopyLeft colectomyLeft hemicolectomyRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID35650261
PMCPMC9262793
OpenAlexW4281835299

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.