ArticleBMC surgery2022
Implementation of a standardized surgical technique in robot-assisted restorative rectal cancer resection: a single center cohort study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Obsidian®ASG in anastomotic healing after rectal cancer resection-OBANORES: a prospective clinical feasibility study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Trial
- Anastomotic leakage following restorative rectal cancer resection: treatment and impact on stoma presence 1 year after surgery-a population-based study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite increasing focus on the technical performance of total mesorectal excision over recent decades, anastomotic leakage (AL) continues to be a serious complication for many patients, even in the hands of experienced surgical teams. This study describes implementation of standardized surgical technique in an effort to reduce variability, decrease the risk of anastomotic leakage, and improve associated short-term outcomes for rectal cancer patients undergoing robot-assisted restorative rectal resection (RRR).
methodsWe evaluated all rectal cancer patients undergoing robot-assisted RRR at Aarhus University Hospital between 2017 and 2020. Six standardized surgical steps directed to improve anastomotic healing were mandatory for all RRR. Additional changes were made during the period with prohibition of systemic dexamethasone and limiting the use of endoscopic stapling devices.
resultsThe use of the full standardization, including all six surgical steps, increased from 40.3% (95% CI, 0.28-0.54) to 86.2% (95% CI, 0.68-0.95). The incidence of AL decreased from 21.0% (95% CI, 0.12-0.33) to 6.9% (95% CI, 0.01-0.23). Length of hospital stay (LOS) decreased from 6 days (range 2-50) to 5 days (range 2-26). The rate of patients readmitted within 90 days decreased from 21.0% (95% CI, 0.12-0.33), to 6.9% (95% CI, 0.01-0.23).
conclusionThe full standardization was effectively implemented for rectal cancer patients undergoing robot-assisted RRR. The risk of AL, LOS and readmission decreased during the study period. A team focus on high-reliability and peri-operative complications can improve patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.