Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37247120›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2023

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a propensity score matched analysis from a bi-centric experience.

Leonardo Solaini, Giuseppe Giuliani, Davide Cavaliere, Antonio Bocchino, Michele Di Marino, Andrea Avanzolini, Andrea Coratti, Giorgio Ercolani

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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Intracorporeal Versus Extracorporeal Colo-colic Anastomosis in Minimally-invasive Left Colectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Leonardo SolainiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. leonardo.solaini2@unibo.it.
Giuseppe GiulianiDepartment of General and Emergency Surgery, Misericordia Hospital, Azienda Usl Toscana Sud Est, Grosseto, Italy.
Davide CavaliereDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Antonio BocchinoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Michele Di MarinoDepartment of General and Emergency Surgery, Misericordia Hospital, Azienda Usl Toscana Sud Est, Grosseto, Italy.
Andrea AvanzoliniDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Andrea CorattiDepartment of General and Emergency Surgery, Misericordia Hospital, Azienda Usl Toscana Sud Est, Grosseto, Italy.
Giorgio ErcolaniDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Ospedale Misericordia - Grosseto · ITUniversity of Bologna · ITOspedale G.B. Morgagni - L.Pierantoni · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advantages of using the robotic platform may not be clearly evident in left colectomies, where the surgeon operates in an "open field" and does not routinely require intraoperative suturing. Current evidences are based on limited cohorts reporting conflicting outcomes regarding robotic left colectomies (RLC). The aim of this study is to report a bi-centric experience with robotic left colectomy in order to help in defining the role of the robotic approach for these procedures. This is a bi-centric propensity score matched study including patients who underwent RLC or laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) between January 1, 2012 and May 1, 2022. RLC patients were matched to LLC patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were conversion to open surgery and 30-day morbidity. In total, 300 patients were included. Of 143 (47.7%) RLC patients, 119 could be matched. After matching, conversion rate (4.2 vs. 7.6%, p = 0.265), 30-day morbidity (16.1 vs. 13.7%, p = 0.736), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (2.4 vs 3.2%, p = 0.572), transfusions (0.8 vs. 4.0%, p = 0.219), and 30-day mortality (0.8 vs 0.8%, p = 1.000) were comparable for RLC and LLC, respectively. Median operative time was longer for RLC (296 min 260-340 vs. 245, 195-296, p < 0.0001). Early oral feeding, time to first flatus, and hospital stay were similar between groups. RLC has safety parameters as well as conversion to open surgery comparable with standard laparoscopy. Operative time is longer with the robotic approach.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresColectomyHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeColon cancerDiverticular diseaseLaparoscopyLeft emicolectomyRobotRobot-assisted

Identifiers

PMID37247120
PMCPMC10492709
OpenAlexW4378640202

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.