Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37452925›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2023

Robotic abdominoperineal resection, posterior vaginectomy and abdomino-lithotomy sacrectomy: technical considerations and case vignette.

C C Kearsey, M Mathur, P A Sutton, C R Selvasekar

Abstract readCase Reports
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

C C KearseyColorectal and Peritoneal Oncology Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK. cck1@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5575-4801
M MathurColorectal and Peritoneal Oncology Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK.
P A SuttonColorectal and Peritoneal Oncology Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK.
C R SelvasekarColorectal and Peritoneal Oncology Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When working with patients who have locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) the ability to undertake minimally invasive procedures becomes more challenging but no less important for patient outcomes. We performed a minimally invasive approach to surgery for LARC invading the posterior vagina and sacrum. The patient was a 75-year-old lady who presented with a locally advanced rectal tumour staged T4N2 with invasion into the posterior wall of the vagina and coccyx/distal sacrum. We introduce a robotic abdominoperineal resection, posterior vaginectomy and abdomino-lithotomy sacrectomy using a purely perineal approach with no robotic adjuncts or intracorporal techniques. Final histology showed moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma invading the vagina and sacrum, ypT4b N0 TRG2 R0 and the patient entered surgical follow-up with no immediate intra- or postoperative complications. A literature review shows the need for more minimally invasive techniques when relating to major pelvic surgery and the benefits of a purely perineal approach include less expensive resource use, fewer training requirements and the ability to utilise this technique in centres that are not robotically equipped.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaProctectomyRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSacrumVaginaAbdomenAgedFemaleHumansNeoplasm InvasivenessPerineumPelvic exenterationRectal cancerRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID37452925
PMCPMC10562300

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.