Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36253768›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2022

Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic left colectomy for radical treatment of colon cancer: a retrospective analysis in a consecutive series of 211 patients.

Zhixiang Huang, Taiyuan Li, Genghua Zhang, Zhen Zhou, Haoran Shi, Cheng Tang, Lingling Yang, Xiong Lei

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhixiang Huang *Gastrointernal Surgical Institute, Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Taiyuan Li *Gastrointernal Surgical Institute, Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Genghua Zhang *Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Zhen ZhouDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Haoran ShiDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Cheng TangDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Lingling YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Xiong LeiGastrointernal Surgical Institute, Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China. leixionglinty@126.com.
Nanchang University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic surgery has been widely used in the radical treatment of colonic cancer. However, it is unclear what advantages the robotic approach offers over other approaches in left colectomy. This study aims to explore the advantage of robotic surgery in left colectomy by comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery.

methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of patients with radical left colectomy for colon cancer who were admitted to the Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, from November 2012 to November 2017. Two hundred eleven patients included were divided into the open surgery group (OS, n=49), laparoscopic surgery group (LS, n=92), and robotic surgery group (RS, n=70) according to surgical techniques. The clinicopathologic data were collected for clinical outcome assessment. Finally, the clinical value of RS in radical left colectomy was further evaluated by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

resultsThree groups were similar in demographics and clinical characteristics. Compared with OS, LS and RS groups had better intraoperative and perioperative clinical outcomes. Moreover, the RS group exhibited the minimum operative times, length of stay (LOS), and evaluated blood loss. LS and RS also exhibited less perioperative and postoperative long-term complications. Three groups showed similar postoperative pathological outcomes. The overall survival and disease-free survival were also similar among the three groups (all P > 0.05). Cox regression analysis showed surgical approach was not a prognostic factor for overall survival (P = 0.671) and disease-free survival (P = 0.776). PSM analysis of RS and LS by clinical characteristics showed RS showed shorter operation time (P < 0.001) and LOS for patients without complications (P = 0.005). However, no significant differences were found in perioperative and long-term postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, overall survival, and disease-free survival.

conclusionsAmong three techniques for radical left colectomy, LS and RS had significant advantages over OS in short-term clinical outcomes, and no significant differences were found in overall, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and distant metastasis incidence. Moreover, RS shows better perioperative clinical outcomes but without compromising survival compared with LS.

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresColectomyHumansLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic surgeryLeft colectomyOpen surgeryRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID36253768
PMCPMC9578184
OpenAlexW4306662161

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.