Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36449038›Full record

ArticleChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023

[Robot-assisted rectal resections-Scoping review for level 1a evidence and retrospective analysis of in-clinic data].

Maria A Willis, Sophia L V Soltau, Cornelius van Beekum, Nils Sommer, Tim R Glowka, Jörg C Kalff, Tim O Vilz

Open access · hybridAbstract readEnglish AbstractScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    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.

Maria A WillisKlinik- und Poliklinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral‑, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland.
Sophia L V SoltauKlinik- und Poliklinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral‑, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland.
Cornelius van BeekumKlinik- und Poliklinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral‑, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland.
Nils SommerKlinik- und Poliklinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral‑, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland.
Tim R GlowkaKlinik- und Poliklinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral‑, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland.
Jörg C KalffKlinik- und Poliklinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral‑, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland.
Tim O VilzKlinik- und Poliklinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral‑, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland. tim.vilz@ukbonn.de.
University Hospital Bonn · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobot-assisted rectal resections are said to overcome the known difficulties of laparoscopic rectal surgery through technical advantages, leading to better treatment results; however, published studies reported very heterogeneous results. The aim of this paper is therefore to determine whether there is class 1a evidence comparing robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resections. Furthermore, we would like to compare the treatment results of our clinic with the calculated effects from the literature. MATERIAL AND

methodsA systematic literature search for class 1a evidence was performed and the calculated effects for 7 preselected outcomes were compared. We then analyzed all elective rectal resections performed in our hospital between 2017 and 2020 and compared the treatment outcomes with the results of the identified meta-analyses.

resultsThe results of the 7 identified meta-analyses did not show homogeneous effects for the outcomes operating time and conversion rate, while the calculated effects of the other outcomes studied were largely consistent. Our patient data showed that robotic rectal resections were associated with significantly longer operation times, while the other outcomes were hardly influenced by the surgical technique. DISCUSSION: Although class 1a meta-analyses comparing robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections already exist, they do not enable an evidence-based recommendation regarding the preference of one of the two surgical techniques. The analysis of our patient data showed that the results achieved in our clinic are largely consistent with the observed effects of the meta-analyses.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRectal NeoplasmsRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansRectumRetrospective StudiesdaVinci®Evidence-based medicineLaparoscopyRectal resection

Identifiers

PMID36449038
PMCPMC9898418
OpenAlexW4310467141

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.