ArticleSurgical endoscopy2011
Robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 71 papers, 10 of them syntheses 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.
Safe Surgery in the Elderly: A Review of Outcomes Following Robotic Proctectomy From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a Retrospective Cross Sectional Cohort Study. Cross-Sectional Study
European Ambispective Cohort of Rectal Cancer Patient Who Underwent Robotic Low Anterior Resection
Who cites it
71 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer: meta-analysis of pathological quality indicators.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing the efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery in obese patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2015Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2011Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of Robot-assistedIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Pooled it
- Acquisition of robotic surgical skills does not require laparoscopic training: a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Trial
- Short-term outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery: a propensity score match study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Robotic Surgery in Rectal Cancer: Potential, Challenges, and Opportunities.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022Review
- The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Review
- Effective implementation and adaptation of structured robotic colorectal programme in a busy tertiary unit.Journal of robotic surgery · 2021Article
- Robotic Surgery in Crohn's Disease.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2021Review
- Options for Low Rectal Cancer: Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2021Review
- Clinical and oncological outcomes of the low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery with robotic surgery in patients with rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapyTurkish journal of medical sciences · 2021Article
11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic total mesorectal excision (RTME), a novel approach for the treatment of rectal cancer, has been shown in previous studies to be safe and effective. However, the results of this approach compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) have not been reported in terms of clinical outcome and oncologic data. This study compared early outcomes for rectal cancer between two groups.
methodsBetween April 2003 and March 2009, 82 patients from a prospectively maintained database were enrolled in a case-matched study. The patients were matched for gender, age, body mass index (BMI), and type of operative procedure.
resultsNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was performed for 33 RTME patients (80.5%) and 18 LTME patients (43.9%) (p=0.001). The mean operative time was 296 min for RTME and 315 min for LTME (p=0.357). The number of conversions were 3 (7.3%) for RTME and 9 (22%) for LTME (p=0.12). The anastomotic leak rate after surgery did not differ between RTME (n=3, 8.6%) and LTME (n=1, 2.9%) (p=0.62). The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 13.1 with RTME and 16.2 with LTME (p=0.07), and negative distal resection margins (DRMs) were noted in all surgical specimens. Positive circumferential resections (CRMs) were identified in 2.4% of the RTME cases and 4.9% of the LTME cases. No difference was noted in lengths of the DRMs, times until a liquid diet, or postoperative hospital stays. The total hospitalization costs were higher in the RTME group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. There was no operative mortality or port-site recurrence in either group.
conclusionFor rectal cancer, RTME may be as feasible and safe as LTME in terms of technical and oncologic issues. Further prospective randomized trials are necessary for conclusions to be drawn concerning definite oncologic outcomes of robotic procedures for rectal cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20607559What 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.