Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38520491›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024

Research progress of robot and laparoscope in postoperative complications of rectal cancer.

Jiming Lian, Jinbiao Li, Cong Liu, BaoDong Luan, Yanmin Miao

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jiming LianCollege of Basic Medical Sciences, Guangdong Yunfu Vocational College of Chinese Medicine, Yunfu, 527300, China.
Jinbiao LiDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510000, China.
Cong LiuDepartment of General Medicine, The First Dongguan Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan, 523000, China.
BaoDong LuanDepartment of Stomatology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangzhou, 510000, China.
Yanmin MiaoCollege of Basic Medical Sciences, Guangdong Yunfu Vocational College of Chinese Medicine, Yunfu, 527300, China. gdyfzyyzyxyljm@163.com.
Guangdong Medical College · CNGuangdong Provincial People's Hospital · CNThe First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumours worldwide, and it is also one of the major diseases that seriously threatens human life and health. At present, the main treatment for rectal cancer is still surgical treatment. The surgical methods have been rapidly developed from the previous open surgery to the current minimally invasive surgery. At present, there are two main minimally invasive surgeries: robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery. Due to the particularity of rectal cancer surgery, more and more studies have shown that robotic rectal cancer surgery has more advantages than laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, whether the incidence of postoperative complications after robotic rectal cancer surgery is lower than that after laparoscopy is not uniformly conclusive in the current study. Therefore, in this paper, we searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase and other databases, collected the latest published meta-analysis on postoperative complications of robots and laparoscopy in rectal cancer, and assessed the quality of the included meta-analysis by AMSTAR-2 evaluation tool, so as to explore the current research status and research quality of postoperative complications of robots and laparoscopy in rectal cancer. The results showed that compared with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, robotic rectal cancer surgery could improve the postoperative urinary and reproductive function of male patients, but it could not be proved that robotic rectal cancer surgery could reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, urinary retention, intestinal obstruction, anastomotic bleeding, incision infection, pulmonary infection, venous thrombosis and abdominal abscess; however, the overall quality of meta-analysis of the results of each complication was low or very low. Therefore, multicenter, large-sample, high-quality prospective randomised controlled studies and high-quality meta-analysis are still needed to prove the advantages of robotic rectal cancer surgery in postoperative complications in the future.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPostoperative ComplicationsRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAnastomotic LeakFemaleHumansLaparoscopesMaleComplicationsLaparoscopyRectal cancerRobotics

Identifiers

PMID38520491
OpenAlexW4393113079

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.