ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2023
Robotic-assisted intracorporeal versus extracorporeal techniques in sigmoidectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic ambulatory colorectal resections: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Robot-assisted radical resection of colorectal cancer using the KangDuo surgical robot versus the da Vinci Xi robotic system: short-term outcomes of a multicentre randomised controlled noninferiority trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Trial
- Robotic intracorporeal single-stapling versus double-stapling anastomosis in left-sided colorectal cancer: a propensity score-weighted pilot study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- The impact of sarcopenia on postoperative complications and survival outcomes after robotic colorectal cancer surgery: a study based on single-center propensity score matching.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scarce research has been performed to assess the safety and efficacy of anastomosis technique on robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy. This study was designed to evaluate the difference between intracorporeal and extracorporeal techniques during robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy. Clinical data of 193 cases who received robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Only 116 cases were available for analysis (intracorporeal group = 58 and extracorporeal group = 58) after propensity score matching. Independent sample t test was conducted to evaluate the continuous variables. Moreover, the statistical significance of categorical variables was tested using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Statistical analysis showed that the intracorporeal group demonstrated greater superiorities in pain scale on the first and second postoperative day (P < 0.05), time of catheter indwelling (P = 0.009), and length of hospital stay (P = 0.019). Additionally, the intracorporeal technique contributed to fewer complications including urinary retention (P = 0.027) and hernia (P = 0.037) than the extracorporeal group. Our analysis revealed that intracorporeal technique was safe and feasible due to the shorter time of catheter indwelling and length of hospital stay and fewer post-operation complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37515681What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.