Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41793538›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2026

Feasibility and outcomes of robotic colorectal cancer surgery in patients with high body mass index.

C Chew, A Panesa, M U Haq, E Gilbert-Kawai, S Ahmed

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2026. 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. Review
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.

C ChewDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, University of Liverpool, Prescot Street, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK.
A PanesaDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7BE, UK.
M U HaqDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, University of Liverpool, Prescot Street, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2303-7469
E Gilbert-KawaiDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Prescot Street, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK.
S AhmedDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, University of Liverpool, Prescot Street, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK. Shakil.ahmed@liverpoolft.nhs.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimally invasive techniques are the standard of care in colorectal surgery. However, high body mass index (BMI) presents technical and anaesthetic challenges. Robotic-assisted surgery offers potential advantages in this population; however, given its relatively recent adoption, outcome data remain limited. This article presents a single-centre case series evaluating the short-term surgical and anaesthetic outcomes of obese patients undergoing robotic colorectal resections.

methodsA retrospective review was performed of patients with BMI > 30 kg/m

resultsSeventy-five patients [mean BMI 35.8 (range 30.0-66.1) kg/m

conclusionRobotic colorectal surgery is a feasible and safe option in elevated BMI patients, with low conversion rates and acceptable morbidity. Importantly, prolonged Trendelenburg position did not appear to increase anaesthetic risk, with only one reversible positioning-related complication observed.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsObesityRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal Surgical ProceduresConversion to Open SurgeryFeasibility StudiesFemaleHead-Down TiltHumansMaleMiddle AgedBody mass indexColorectal neoplasmsMinimally invasive surgeryPerioperative careRobotic surgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID41793538
PMCPMC12979364

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.