Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36324050›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2023

Combining staged laparoscopic colectomy with robotic completion proctectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) in ulcerative colitis for improved clinical and cosmetic outcomes: a single-center feasibility study and technical description.

Dominique Lisa Birrer, Maurus Frehner, Janina Kitow, Kim-Marie Zoetzl, Andreas Rickenbacher, Luc Biedermann, Matthias Turina

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Dominique Lisa BirrerDepartment of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital of Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Maurus FrehnerDepartment of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital of Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Janina KitowDepartment of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital of Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Kim-Marie ZoetzlDepartment of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital of Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Andreas RickenbacherDepartment of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital of Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Luc BiedermannDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Matthias TurinaDepartment of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital of Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. Matthias.Turina@usz.ch.
University Hospital of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic proctectomy has been shown to lead to better functional outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer. However, in ulcerative colitis (UC), the potential value of robotic proctectomy has not yet been investigated, and in this indication, the operation needs to be adjusted to the total colectomy typically performed in the preceding 6 months. In this study, we describe the technique and analyze outcomes of a staged laparoscopic and robotic three-stage restorative proctocolectomy and compare the clinical outcome with the classical laparoscopic procedure. Between December 2016 and May 2021, 17 patients underwent robotic completion proctectomy (CP) with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for UC. These patients were compared to 10 patients who underwent laparoscopic CP and IPAA, following laparoscopic total colectomy with end ileostomy 6 months prior by the same surgical team at our tertiary referral center. 27 patients underwent a 3-stage procedure for refractory UC (10 in the lap. group vs. 17 in the robot group). Return to normal bowel function and morbidity were comparable between the two groups. Median length of hospital stay was the same for the robotic proctectomy/IPAA group with 7 days [median; IQR (6-10)], compared to the laparoscopic stage II with 7.5 days [median; IQR (6.25-8)]. Median time to soft diet was 2 days [IQR (1-3)] vs. 3 days in the lap group [IQR 3 (3-4)]. Two patients suffered from a major complication (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3a) in the first 90 postoperative days in the robotic group vs. one in the laparoscopic group. Perception of cosmetic results were favorable with 100% of patients reporting to be highly satisfied or satisfied in the robotic group. This report demonstrates the feasibility of a combined laparoscopic and robotic staged restorative proctocolectomy for UC, when compared with the traditional approach. Robotic pelvic dissection and a revised trocar placement in staged proctocolectomy with synergistic use of both surgical techniques with their individual advantages will likely improve overall long-term functional results, including an improved cosmetic outcome.

Indexed as

Colitis, UlcerativeLaparoscopyProctocolectomy, RestorativeRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAnastomosis, SurgicalColectomyFeasibility StudiesHumansPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeIleal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA)LaparoscopyProcedureRestorative proctocolectomyRobotic surgeryThree-stageUlcerative colitis

Identifiers

PMID36324050
PMCPMC10209236
OpenAlexW4307987383

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.