SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
Evaluation of an established colorectal robotic programme at an NHS district general hospital: audit of outcomes and systematic review of published data.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of 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.
- European Society of Coloproctology guideline on training in robotic colorectal surgery (2024).Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Guideline
- Structured robotic colorectal training in a non-tertiary NHS hospital: a 502-case consecutive cohort implementation study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic surgery in emergency general surgery: an overview of UK practice.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRobotic-assisted surgery (RAS) offers potential advantages over traditional surgical approaches. This study aimed to assess outcomes from a district general hospital (DGH) robotic colorectal programme against published data. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe robotic programme was established following simulator, dry/wet lab training, and proctoring. We performed a case series analysing technical, patient, and oncological outcomes extracted from a prospective database of colorectal RAS cases (2015-2022). A registered systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42022300773; PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE) of single-centre colorectal series from established robotic centres (n>200 cases) was completed and compared to local data using descriptive summary statistics. Risk of bias assessment was performed using an adapted version of the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool.
resultsTwo hundred thirty-two RAS cases were performed including 122 anterior resections, 56 APERs, 19 rectopexies, and 15 Hartmann's procedures. The median duration was 325 (IQR 265-400) min. Blood loss was < 100 ml in 97% of cases with 2 (0.9%) cases converted to open. Complications (Clavien-Dindo 3-5) occurred in 19 (8%) patients, with 3 (1.3%) deaths in < 30 days. Length of stay was 7 (IQR 5-11) days. In 169 rectal cancer cases, there were 9 (5.3%) cases with a positive circumferential or distal margin and lymph node yield of 17 (IQR 13-24). A systematic review of 1648 abstracts identified 13 studies from established robotic centres, totaling 4930 cases, with technical, patient, and oncological outcomes comparable to our own case series.
conclusionsOutcomes from our robotic colorectal programme at a UK DGH are comparable with the largest published case series from world-renowned centres. Training and proctoring together with rolling audit must accompany the expansion of robotic surgery to safeguard outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37874420What 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.