Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38466108›Full record

SynthesisJournal of Crohn's & colitis2024

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgical Techniques.

Shafquat Zaman, Ali Yasen Y Mohamedahmed, Widad Abdelrahman, Hashim E Abdalla, Ali Ahmed Wuheb, Mohamed Talaat Issa, Nameer Faiz, Nuha A Yassin

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of Crohn's & colitis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Robotic Heineke-Mikulicz strictureplasty for ileal Crohn's disease-A video vignette.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

8 authors.

Shafquat ZamanDepartment of General Surgery, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0992-8289
Ali Yasen Y MohamedahmedDepartment of Colorectal and General Surgery, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1219-7571
Widad AbdelrahmanDepartment of Colorectal and General Surgery, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK.
Hashim E AbdallaDepartment of Colorectal and General Surgery, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK.
Ali Ahmed WuhebDepartment of Colorectal and General Surgery, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK.
Mohamed Talaat IssaDepartment of General Surgery, Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley Group NHS Trust, Dudley, UK.
Nameer FaizDepartment of General Surgery, Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley Group NHS Trust, Dudley, UK.
Nuha A YassinCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to evaluate outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD].

methodsComparative studies of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with IBD were included. The primary outcome was total post-operative complication rate. Secondary outcomes included operative time, conversion to open surgery, anastomotic leaks, intra-abdominal abscess formation, ileus occurrence, surgical site infection, re-operation, re-admission rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias.

resultsEleven non-randomized studies [n = 5566 patients] divided between those undergoing robotic [n = 365] and conventional laparoscopic [n = 5201] surgery were included. Robotic platforms were associated with a significantly lower overall post-operative complication rate compared with laparoscopic surgery [p = 0.03]. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a significantly shorter operative time [p = 0.00001]. No difference was found in conversion rates to open surgery [p = 0.15], anastomotic leaks [p = 0.84], abscess formation [p = 0.21], paralytic ileus [p = 0.06], surgical site infections [p = 0.78], re-operation [p = 0.26], re-admission rate [p = 0.48], and 30-day mortality [p = 1.00] between the groups. Length of hospital stay was shorter following a robotic sub-total colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy [p = 0.03].

conclusionOutcomes in the surgical management of IBD are comparable between traditional laparoscopic techniques and robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery, demonstrating the safety and feasibility of robotic platforms. Larger studies investigating the use of robotic technology in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis separately may be of benefit with a specific focus on important IBD-related metrics.

Indexed as

ColectomyInflammatory Bowel DiseasesLaparoscopyPostoperative ComplicationsRobotic Surgical ProceduresConversion to Open SurgeryHumansLength of StayOperative TimePatient ReadmissionReoperationinflammatory bowel diseaseMinimally invasive surgeryrobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID38466108
PMCPMC11324345

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.