Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38713324›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024

Robotic ambulatory colorectal resections: a systematic review.

Joachim Cheng En Ho, Aryan Raj Goel, Adriel Heilong Fung, Irshad Shaikh, Muhammad Rafaih Iqbal

Abstract readSystematic Review
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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Joachim Cheng En Ho *UCL Medical School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, London, UK. joachim.ho.19@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-3301-2373
Aryan Raj Goel *UCL Medical School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3670-984X
Adriel Heilong FungNorfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1068-4859
Irshad ShaikhNorfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1467-815X
Muhammad Rafaih IqbalNorfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5737-9558

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal surgery has progressed greatly via minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic and robotic. With the advent of ERAS protocols, patient recovery times have greatly shortened, allowing for same day discharges (SDD). Although SDD have been explored through laparoscopic colectomy reviews, no reviews surrounding robotic ambulatory colorectal resections (RACrR) exist to date. A systematic search was carried out across three databases and internet searches. Data were selected and extracted by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria included robotic colorectal resections with a length of hospital stay of less than one day or 24 h. 4 studies comprising 136 patients were retrieved. 56% of patients were female and were aged between 21 and 89 years. Main surgery indications were colorectal cancer and recurrent sigmoid diverticulitis (43% each). Most patients had low anterior resections (48%). Overall, there was a 4% complication rate postoperatively, with only 1 patient requiring readmission due to postoperative urinary retention (< 1%). Patient selection criteria involved ASA score cut-offs, nutritional status, and specific health conditions. Protocols employed shared similarities including ERAS education, transabdominal plane blocks, early removal of urinary catheters, an opioid-sparing regime, and encouraged early oral intake and ambulation prior to discharge. All 4 studies had various follow-up methods involving telemedicine, face-to-face consultations, and virtual ward teams. RACrRs is safe and feasible in a highly specific patient population; however, further high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to draw more significant conclusions. Several limitations included small sample size and the potential of recall bias due to retrospective nature of 2 studies.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Surgical ProceduresLength of StayRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsYoung AdultAmbulatoryColorectal surgeryMinimally invasive surgeryRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID38713324
PMCPMC11076342

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.