ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2023
A propensity score matching study of totally robotic right hemicolectomy versus robot-assisted right hemicolectomy.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To compare and analyze the differences in safety, feasibility and short-term efficacy between robot-assisted right hemicolectomy (RARH) and totally robotic right hemicolectomy (TRRH). We collected the information of 184 patients who underwent right hemicolectomy in the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from July 2016 to December 2021. We matched 148 patients (74 with robot-assisted right hemicolectomy and 74 with totally robotic right hemicolectomy) to conduct a retrospective analysis of their clinical outcomes. The incision lengths were 5.14 ± 0.60 cm in the RARH group and 4.74 ± 0.55 cm in the TRRH (p < 0.001). The blood losses were 86.28 ± 52.57 mL in the RARH group and 69.19 ± 44.78 mL in the TRRH (p = 0.035). The operative times were 197.50 min (171.25-242.25) in the RARH group and 160.00 min (145.00-188.75) in the TRRH (p < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stays were 11.18 ± 4.32 days in the RARH group and 9.53 ± 4.42 days in the TRRH (p = 0.023). The NRS pain scores were 3.05 ± 0.23 in the RARH group and 2.96 ± 0.26 in the TRRH (p = 0.019). The abdominal drainage extraction times were 7.54 ± 1.44 days in the RARH group and 7.00 ± 1.25 days in the TRRH (p = 0.016). Postoperative complications in the RARH group are fewer than TRRH (p = 0.033). TRRH is safe and feasible. Compared with RARHs, the TRRHs resulted in shorter incision lengths, operative times, intraoperative blood losses, postoperative hospital stays, first flatus times, first liquid diet times, and drainage tube removal times, and they improved NRS pain scores and postoperative complication frequencies.
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.