Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38498211›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024

Surgical and medical outcomes in robotic compared to laparoscopic colectomy global prospective cohort from the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program.

Rodrigo Moisés de Almeida Leite, Sergio Eduardo Alonso Araujo, Alexandre Venancio de Souza, Christy Cauley, Rob Goldstone, Todd Francone, Leandro Cardoso Barchi, Gustavo Yano Callado, Larissa Fagundes, Ulysses Ribeiro and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Rodrigo Moisés de Almeida Leite *Colon and Rectal Surgery Department, Massachussets General Hospital, 15 Parkman Street, WACC 460, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5998-7925
Sergio Eduardo Alonso Araujo *Staff Colorectal Surgeon and Medical Director, Oncology Division, Albert Einstein Israelite Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil.
Alexandre Venancio de SouzaFaculdade de Medicina de Jundiaí, Jundiaí, Brazil.
Christy CauleyDepartment of Surgery, Massachussets General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02214, USA.
Rob GoldstoneDepartment of Surgery, Massachussets General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02214, USA.
Todd FranconeDepartment of Surgery, Massachussets General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02214, USA.
Leandro Cardoso BarchiGastrointestinal Surgery Division, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.
Gustavo Yano CalladoAlbert Einstein Israelite Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Larissa FagundesFaculdade de Medicina de Jundiaí, Jundiaí, Brazil.
Ulysses RibeiroGastrointestinal Surgery Division, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.
Hannah BossieIntuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, USA.
Rocco RicciardiColon and Rectal Surgery Department, Massachussets General Hospital, 15 Parkman Street, WACC 460, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. rricciardi1@mgh.harvard.edu.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USHospital Israelita Albert Einstein · BRFaculdade de Medicina de Jundiaí · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRIntuitive Surgical (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence regarding the outcomes benefits of robotic approach, when compared to a laparoscopic approach, in colectomy remain limited.

objectiveThis study aimed to analyze the value of robotic approach compared to laparoscopic approach in minimally invasive colectomy.

designCohort study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP).

settingThis study included data from the NSQIP from 1/2016 to 12/2021. PATIENT: Adult patients undergoing minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) colorectal surgery.

interventionRobotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk ratios for the incidence of medical and surgical morbidity and overall mortality.

resultsCompared to laparoscopic, robotic colectomy was associated with a significant decrease in postoperative morbidity [RR 0.84 (95%CI 0.72-0.96), P < 0.001], a significant reduction in postoperative mortality [RR 0.83 (95%CI 0.79-0.90), P 0.010)], and in post operative ileus [RR: 0.80 (95%CI 0.75-0.84), P < 0.001]. Yet, robotic approach was associated with a significant increase in total operative time despite a significant decrease in total length of stay. No benefit was observed regarding anastomotic leak. LIMITATIONS: Observational nature of the study cannot exclude residual bias.

conclusionsIn this prospective cohort from the NSQIP, robotic colectomy was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative ileus, unplanned conversion to open surgery, morbidity, and overall mortality when compared to laparoscopic colectomy.

Indexed as

ColectomyLaparoscopyPostoperative ComplicationsQuality ImprovementRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesColectomyColon cancerLaparoscopicMinimally invasiveRectal cancerRobotic

Identifiers

PMID38498211
OpenAlexW4392908530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.