Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36790541›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2023

Patient experiences of left-sided colorectal resection by robotic, conventional laparoscopic and open approaches: a qualitative study.

O Claydon, J McCulloch, G C Thorpe, S Kulkarni, C Delimpalta, D Dowsett, W Ward, A Stearns, J Hernon, S Kapur and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

O ClaydonNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk, UK. oliver.claydon@me.com.ORCID 0000-0002-0294-5337
J McCullochNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk, UK.
G C ThorpeUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
S KulkarniNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk, UK.
C DelimpaltaNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk, UK.
D DowsettNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk, UK.
W WardNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk, UK.
A StearnsNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk, UK.
J HernonNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk, UK.
S KapurNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk, UK.
I ShaikhNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk, UK.
Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBNorfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

Intuitive Surgical Clinical Robotic Research Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic surgery (RS) is increasingly employed in colorectal surgical practice, widening the range of surgical techniques offered to patients. We investigated the perceptions of patients with colorectal cancer in relation to RS, open surgery (OS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), to identify ideas or assumptions which, in the context of shared surgeon-patient decision-making, may affect the resultant choice of surgical technique. We also investigated salient factors affecting patients' perioperative experience, including those of RS patients, to guide improvements in care and preoperative patient preparation.

methodsThis study was conducted on patients who underwent resection of left-sided colorectal cancer at a large UK teaching hospital from November 2020 to July 2021. Purposive sampling was used to ensure a roughly equal proportion of patients who underwent RS, CLS and OS. The patients included in the study participated in semi-structured interviews six weeks postoperatively. The interview schedule allowed discussion around patients' experience of their surgery and postoperative recovery, and their perceptions of surgical techniques. Interview transcripts were coded manually using inductive thematic analysis, and analyst triangulation was employed to refine coding schemes and ensure reliability of emerging themes.

resultsTwenty-seven patients were recruited to the study; RS n = 9 (median age 69 [range 60-80] years); CLS n = 10 (median age 72 [range 32-82] years; OS n = 8 (median age 71 [range 60-75] years). Patients understood the technological benefits of RS but were concerned by a risk of technological failure causing patient harm. OS was understood to be associated with more pain and longer recovery than RS or CLS. Patients perceived CLS to be more technically challenging compared with OS. Less pain and smaller wounds than expected were significant positive factors in the experience of RS and CLS patients specifically. Complications and emotional impact were significant factors in the experience of all groups, for which many patients felt underprepared.

conclusionsPatients generally have a positive view of RS and technical innovation in surgery. Concerns mostly centred around failure of technology. Many patients felt unprepared for significant factors in their perioperative experience. Surgeons and healthcare providers should be prepared to address patients' perceptions and expectations of colorectal surgery preoperatively.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overHumansMiddle AgedPainPatient Outcome AssessmentPostoperative ComplicationsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesColorectal cancerColorectal surgeryLaparoscopic surgeryLaparotomyPatient perceptionsRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID36790541
OpenAlexW4320857265

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.