The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy
Abstract
Background: Robotic surgery was invented to overcome the demerits of laparoscopic technique. However, it is unclear whether robot-assisted colectomy (RAC) has significant clinical advantages over laparoscopically assisted colectomy (LAC) in treating colonic cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of RAC versus LAC for right-sided colonic cancer. Methods: Patients with right-sided colonic cancer were randomized to receive RAC or LAC. The primary outcome measure was length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were duration of operation, morbidity, postoperative pain, hospital costs and pathological quality of the specimen. Results: Of 71 patients randomized, 70 (35 in each group) were included in the analysis. Hospital stay, surgical complications, postoperative pain score, resection margin clearance and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar in both groups. The duration of surgery was longer in the RAC group (195 versus 130 min; P < 0·001). No conversion to open surgery was needed in either group. Overall hospital costs were significantly higher for RAC (US $ 12 235 versus $ 10 320; P = 0·013); the higher costs were attributed primarily to the costs of surgery, including consumables. Conclusion: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic right colectomy was feasible but provided no benefit to justify the greater cost. Registration number: NCT01042743 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dindo, D., Demartines, N., & Clavien, P.-A. (2004) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae · Cited by 31,378
American Joint Committee on Cancer (2002) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3656-4 · Cited by 6,379
Jayne, D. G., Guillou, P. J., Thorpe, H., Quirke, P., Copeland, J., Smith, A. M. H., Heath, R. M., & Brown, J. M. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2006.09.7758 · Cited by 1,497
(2009) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(08)70310-3 · Cited by 1,429
Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial
Leung, K. L., Kwok, S. P., Lam, S. C., Lee, J. F., Yiu, R. Y., Ng, S. S., Lai, P. B., & Lau, W. Y. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)15947-3 · Cited by 888
Tekkis, P. P., Senagore, A. J., Delaney, C. P., & Fazio, V. W. (2005) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000167857.14690.68 · Cited by 745
Japanese classification of colorectal carcinoma
大腸癌研究会 (2009) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 615
Defining a learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal resections
Schlachta, C. M., Mamazza, J., Seshadri, P. A., Cadeddu, M., Gregoire, R., & Poulin, E. C. (2001) · Diseases of the Colon & Rectum · doi:10.1007/bf02234296 · Cited by 422
Robotic and Laparoscopic Surgery for Treatment of Colorectal Diseases
D'Annibale, A., Morpurgo, E., Fiscon, V., Trevisan, P., Sovernigo, G., Orsini, C., & Guidolin, D. (2004) · Diseases of the Colon & Rectum · doi:10.1007/s10350-004-0711-z · Cited by 357
Robot-Assisted Endoscopic Surgery: A Four-Year Single-Center Experience
Ruurda, J. P. H., Draaisma, W. A., van Hillegersberg, R., Rinkes, I. H. M. B., Gooszen, H. G., Janssen, L. W. M., Simmermacher, R. K. J., & Broeders, I. A. M. J. (2005) · Digestive Surgery · doi:10.1159/000088628 · Cited by 104
Cited by
Kassahun, Y., Yu, B., Tibebu, A. T., Stoyanov, D., Giannarou, S., Metzen, J. H., & Vander Poorten, E. (2016) · International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11548-015-1305-z · Cited by 238
Metadata
- Authors
- Park, J. S., Choi, G.-S., Park, S. Y., Kim, H. J., & Ryuk, J. P.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-08-02
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1219-1226
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2154379670
- Cited by
- 382
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 11.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
