Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37403084›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2023

Comparison of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in short-terms outcomes of middle rectal cancer.

Shan-Ping Ye, Hong-Xin Yu, Dong-Ning Liu, Wei-Jie Lu, Can Wu, Hao-Cheng Xu, Tai-Yuan Li

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  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.

Shan-Ping Ye *Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Hong-Xin Yu *Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Dong-Ning LiuDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Wei-Jie LuDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Can WuDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Hao-Cheng XuDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Tai-Yuan LiDepartment of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, No. 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi Province, China. litaiyuanyfy@sina.com.

Funding

Science and technology plan project of Jiangxi Provincial Health Commission 202310016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgery is becoming less invasive as technology advances. Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) ushered in a new era of minimally invasive techniques. At the same time, NOSES is gaining popularity in the world. With their distinct advantages, surgical robots have advanced the development of NOSES. The aim of current study was to compare the short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted NOSES and laparoscopic-assisted NOSES for the treatment of middle rectal cancer.

methodsPatients with middle rectal cancer who underwent robotic-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted NOSES at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between January 2020 and June 2022 had their clinicopathological data collected retrospectively. 46 patients were enrolled in the study: 23 in the robotic group and 23 in the laparoscopic group. Short-term outcomes and postoperative anal function in the two groups were compared.

resultsThere was no significant difference in the clinicopathological data between the two groups. The robotic group had less intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.04), less postoperative abdominal drainage (p = 0.02), lower postoperative white blood cell counts (p = 0.024) and C-reactive protein levels (p = 0.017), and shorter catheter removal time when compared to the laparoscopic group (p = 0.003). Furthermore, there were no significant difference in mean operative time (159 ± 31 min vs 172 ± 41 min) between the robotic and laparoscopic groups (p = 0.235), but time to naked the rectum (86.4 ± 20.9 min vs. 103.8 ± 31.5 min p = 0.033) and time of digestive tract reconstruction (15.6 ± 3.88 min vs. 22.1 ± 2.81 min p < 0.01) in the robotic group were significantly shorter than laparoscopic group. The robotic group had lower postoperative Wexner scores than the laparoscopic group.

conclusionsThis research reveals that combining a robotic surgical system and NOSES results in superior outcomes, with short-term outcomes preferable to laparoscopic-assisted NOSES.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAnal functionLaparoscopic NOSESMiddle rectal cancerRobotic NOSESShort-time outcomes

Identifiers

PMID37403084
PMCPMC10318637

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.