ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Trends in operative time and patient outcomes in robotic colostomy reversal: surgeons' short-term pain for patients' long-term gain.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Does robotics add value in Hartmann's reversal? A PRISMA-based systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study was to assess robotic console time and total operative time, as well as post-operative outcomes, in patients undergoing robotic-assisted colostomy reversal.
methodsThis was a single institution retrospective review of patients undergoing robotic colostomy reversal from January 2020 to February 2024. Demographics, pre-, intra-, and post-operative data were collected and analyzed to evaluate factors associated with prolonged console and operative times, as well as assess post-operative outcomes.
results37 patients underwent robotic-assisted colostomy reversal. 21 patients were male. Mean age was 57.1 years and 87.5% were Caucasian. 40.5% had hypertension, 5.4% had DMII, 2.7% had CHF, 5.4% had CKD, and 5.4% had COPD. 24 (64.9%) had colostomies secondary to perforated diverticulitis, 8.1% due to diverticulitis without frank perforation, 8.1% due to perforated or obstructing colon malignancies, and 5.4% following traumatic colon injuries. 97.3% had fully independent functional statuses. Two cases (5.4%) were converted to open. Mean console time for all cases was 174 min. Mean console time in those who did not undergo pre-operative ureteral stenting or ICG instillation was significantly less (161 min) than those who did (203 min) (p = 0.020). Over the study period, there was no statistically significant decrease in robotic console time (p = 0.982) or total operative time (p = 0.977). Two patients (5.4%) had post-operative rectal bleeding, one of which required transfusion. No patients had post-operative anastomotic leaks. Mean return of bowel function was 2.1 days. Mean length of stay was 3.7 days and 85.3% of patients were discharged within 4 days. One (2.7%) patient was readmitted within 90 days.
conclusionRobotic colostomy reversal appears to be a safe and feasible option with a low incidence of complications. Operative time remains long, primarily due to the need for minimally invasive lysis of adhesions. Use of ureteral stenting also contributes to longer console and operative times.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40659947What 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.