Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38554211›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024

Perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a retrospective study of 672 patients.

Niyaz Shadmanov, Vusal Aliyev, Guglielmo Niccolò Piozzi, Barıs Bakır, Suha Goksel, Oktar Asoglu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Niyaz ShadmanovBogazici Academy for Clinical Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9752-5318
Vusal AliyevBogazici Academy for Clinical Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0730-7737
Guglielmo Niccolò PiozziDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6667-9202
Barıs BakırDepartment of Radiology, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6587-9787
Suha GokselDepartment of Pathology, Maslak Acibadem Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6329-0354
Oktar AsogluBogazici Academy for Clinical Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey. oktarasoglu@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9147-1654

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although there's growing information about the long-term oncological effects of robotic surgery for rectal cancer, the procedure is still relatively new. This study aimed to assess the long-term oncological results of total mesorectal excision (TME) performed laparoscopically versus robotically in the setting of rectal cancer. Restrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. A total of 489 laparoscopic (L-TME) and 183 robotic total mesorectal excisions (R-TME) were carried out by a single surgeon between 2013 and 2023. The groups were compared in terms of perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. In the R-TME and L-TME groups, male sex predominated (75.4% and 57.3%, respectively), although the robotic group was significantly greater (p = 0.008). There was no conversion in R-TME group, whereas three (0.6%) converted to open surgery in L-TME group. The R-TME group had a statistically significant higher number of distal rectal tumors (85%) compared to the L-TME group (54.6%). Only three (1.7%) patients in the R-TME group received abdomineperineal resection (APR); in contrast, 25 (5%) patients in the L-TME group received APR (p < 0.001). For R-TME, the mean follow-up was 70.7 months (range 18-138) and for L-TME, it was 60 months (range 14-140). Frequency of completed mesorectum was significantly greater in R-TME group (98.9% vs 94.2%, p < 0.001). The 5 year overall survival rates for R-TME and L-TME groups were 89.6% and 88.7%, respectively. The 5 year disease-free survival for R-TME and L-TME groups were 84.1% and 81.1%, respectively. The local recurrences rates were 7.6% and 6.3%, respectively in R-TME and L-TME groups (p = 0.274). R-TME is characterized by no conversion and improved mesorectal integrity. R-TME had longer operation time. The long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between groups.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic approachOncological outcomesRectal cancerRobotic approachTotal mesorectal excision

Identifiers

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.