Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32775356›Full record

ArticleVisceral medicine2020

Pros and Cons of Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery.

Jan Henrik Beckmann, Anne-Sophie Mehdorn, Jan-Niclas Kersebaum, Witigo von Schönfels, Terbish Taivankhuu, Matthias Laudes, Jan-Hendrik Egberts, Thomas Becker

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Visceral medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Comparison between DaVinciJournal of robotic surgery · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jan Henrik BeckmannDepartment of General, Visceral-, Thoracic-, Transplantation-, and Pediatric Surgery, Kurt-Semm Center for Laparoscopic and Robotic Assisted Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Anne-Sophie MehdornDepartment of General, Visceral-, Thoracic-, Transplantation-, and Pediatric Surgery, Kurt-Semm Center for Laparoscopic and Robotic Assisted Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Jan-Niclas KersebaumDepartment of General, Visceral-, Thoracic-, Transplantation-, and Pediatric Surgery, Kurt-Semm Center for Laparoscopic and Robotic Assisted Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Witigo von SchönfelsDepartment of General, Visceral-, Thoracic-, Transplantation-, and Pediatric Surgery, Kurt-Semm Center for Laparoscopic and Robotic Assisted Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Terbish TaivankhuuDepartment of General, Visceral-, Thoracic-, Transplantation-, and Pediatric Surgery, Kurt-Semm Center for Laparoscopic and Robotic Assisted Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Matthias LaudesI. Department of Medicine, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Jan-Hendrik EgbertsDepartment of General, Visceral-, Thoracic-, Transplantation-, and Pediatric Surgery, Kurt-Semm Center for Laparoscopic and Robotic Assisted Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Thomas BeckerDepartment of General, Visceral-, Thoracic-, Transplantation-, and Pediatric Surgery, Kurt-Semm Center for Laparoscopic and Robotic Assisted Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRevisional procedures in bariatric surgery are regarded as technically more demanding and riskier than primary interventions. While the use of the surgical robot has not yet proven to be advantageous in primary bariatric interventions, the question remains whether its use is justified for more complex revisional procedures.

objectiveTo show that revisional bariatric surgery can be performed safely using the da Vinci® Xi surgical system.

methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data for revisional bariatric procedures between January 2016 and November 2019.

resultsOf 78 revision operations, four (5.1%) were performed by open surgery, 30 (38.5%) by laparoscopic surgery, and 44 (56.4%) by robotic surgery. A comparative analysis of robotic (

conclusionsRevisional bariatric surgery using a robotic system is safe. The operative time performing rRRYGB is significantly shorter than rLRYGB in our experience. Otherwise, results were largely comparable. Due to different indications, different index operations and a wide range of revisional procedures, further studies are necessary to confirm these results.

Indexed as

ComplicationLaparoscopic surgeryObesityRevisional bariatric surgeryRobotic surgeryRoux-en-Y gastric bypass

Identifiers

PMID32775356
PMCPMC7383264
OpenAlexW3025302861

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.