Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37644538›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2023

Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Emile Farah, Andres A Abreu, Benjamin Rail, Javier Salgado, Georgios Karagkounis, Herbert J Zeh, Patricio M Polanco

Open access · goldAbstract 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 38 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
12.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emile FarahDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Andres A AbreuDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Benjamin RailDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Javier SalgadoDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Georgios KaragkounisDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Herbert J ZehDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Patricio M PolancoDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. Patricio.Polanco@utsouthwestern.edu.
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic colorectal surgery is becoming the preferred surgical approach for colorectal cancer (CRC). It offers several technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy that could improve patient outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared robotic and laparoscopic surgery for CRC using a national cohort of patients.

methodsUsing the colectomy-targeted ACS-NSQIP database (2015-2020), colorectal procedures for malignant etiologies were identified by CPT codes for right colectomy (RC), left colectomy (LC), and low anterior resection (LAR). Optimal pair matching was performed. "Textbook outcome" was defined as the absence of 30-day complications, readmission, or mortality and a length of stay < 5 days.

resultsWe included 53,209 out of 139,759 patients screened for eligibility. Laparoscopic-to-robotic matching of 2:1 was performed for RC and LC, and 1:1 for LAR. The largest standardized mean difference was 0.048 after matching. Robotic surgery was associated with an increased rate of textbook outcomes compared to laparoscopy in RC and LC, but not in LAR (71% vs. 64% in RC, 75% vs. 68% in LC; p < 0.001). Robotic LAR was associated with increased major morbidity (7.1% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.012). For all three procedures, the mean conversion rate of robotic surgery was lower than laparoscopy (4.3% vs. 9.2%; p < 0.001), while the mean operative time was higher for robotic (225 min vs. 177 min; p < 0.001).

conclusionsRobotic surgery for CRC offers an advantage over conventional laparoscopy by improving textbook outcomes in RC and LC. This advantage was not found in robotic LAR, which also showed an increased risk of serious complications. The associations highlighted in our study should be considered in the discussion of the surgical management of patients with colorectal cancer.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesColorectal cancerColorectal surgeryLaparoscopicRobotic

Identifiers

PMID37644538
PMCPMC10466759
OpenAlexW4386246640

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.