ArticlePloS one2025
Association of center-level operative volume and acute outcomes following robotic-assisted colectomy for colorectal cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishing a sustainable and high-utilization robot-assisted surgery platform in a regional cancer center: insights from a multidisciplinary, break-even-guided operational strategy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Treatment in 2026: An Updated Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Surgeon Volume and Clinical Outcomes After Robotic Elective and Emergency General Surgery.JAMA network open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe adoption of robotic-assisted colectomy (RAC) remains limited due to high costs. There is a paucity of data regarding the impact of institutional robotic experience on costs in patients undergoing RAC for colorectal cancer.
methodsAll adult patients undergoing RAC for colorectal cancer were identified using the 2016-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. A multivariable regression to model major adverse events (MAE) was developed with the inclusion of institutional robotic surgery volume as restricted cubic splines. The volume corresponding to the inflection point of the spline was used to stratify hospitals into high- (HVH) or low-volume (LVH). We subsequently examined the association of HVH status with costs, length of stay (LOS), MAE, non-home discharge and 30-day unplanned readmission.
resultsAmong the 39,064 patients undergoing RAC, 65.2% were treated at HVH. Following risk adjustment, RAC at HVH was associated with reduced index hospitalization costs by $2,000 (95%CI $1,500-2,400) and LOS by 0.3 days (95%CI 0.2-0.5 days) as well as decreased odds of MAE (AOR 0.86, 95%CI 0.77-0.96). Both non-home discharge and 30-day unplanned readmission were not associated with hospital volume. In our cross-volume analysis, we found an increase in institutional RAC and overall robotic volumes to be associated with reduced odds of MAE.
conclusionThe present study demonstrated higher institutional robotic-assisted operation volume to be associated with reduced MAE and cost in patients undergoing RAC. The findings suggest the potential benefits of increasing expertise and implementing efficient practices in robotic-assisted surgery programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.