ArticleWorld journal of surgery2013
Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03765411 (Safe Surgery in the Elderly), which is not on this map. Cited by 87 papers, 9 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
Who cites it
87 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Laparoscopic versus robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: an updated meta-analysis with comparison against published systematic reviews.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of robotic colorectal surgery programs worldwide and a comprehensive description of local robotic training programme.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic colorectal surgery in Latin America: a systematic review on surgical outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- The current status of robotic colorectal surgery training programmes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence.Scientific reports · 2016Pooled it
- Robotic versus Laparoscopic Approach in Colonic Resections for Cancer and Benign Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials.World journal of surgical oncology · 2014Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Trial
- Disparities in robot utilization in colorectal surgery: the widening gap.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Economic transition during robotic colorectal surgery implementation: reduced device costs and improved gross profit per hospital day.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Early Experience With Robotic Approaches to Inflammatory Bowel Disease Surgery: A Single-Center Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Comprehensive revenue comparison of pure robotic vs. hybrid robotic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectosigmoid cancer.Surgery today · 2025Article
- Improved 5-year survival with robot-assisted resection for locally advanced rectal cancer compared to laparoscopic and open surgery: A real-world cohort study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- Feasibility of the hinotori™ surgical robot system in right colectomy: a propensity score matching study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- An Augmented Reality Visor for Intraoperative Visualization, Guidance, and Temperature Monitoring Using Fluorescence.Journal of biophotonics · 2025Article
- Robotic Laser Tissue Soldering for Atraumatic Soft Tissue Fusion Guided by Fluorescent Nanothermometry.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Comparison of short-term outcomes and perioperative costs in laparoscopic versus robotic surgery for rectal cancers: A real-world cohort study using Japanese nationwide inpatient database.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2025Article
- Feasibility, clinical outcomes, and learning curves of robotic-assisted colorectal cancer surgery in a high-volume district general hospital: a cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Article
27 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is becoming increasingly popular, data comparing its outcomes to other established techniques remain limited to small case series. Moreover, there are no large studies evaluating the trends of RACS at the national level.
methodsThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009-2010 was retrospectively reviewed for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal procedures performed for cancer, benign polyps, and diverticular disease. Trends in different settings, indications, and demographics were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare selected outcomes between RACS and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).
resultsAn estimated 128,288 colorectal procedures were performed through minimally invasive techniques over the study period, and RACS was used in 2.78 % of cases. From 2009 to 2010, the use of robotics increased in all hospital settings but was still more common in large, urban, and teaching hospitals. Rectal cancer was the most common indication for RACS, with a tendency toward its selective use in male patients. On multivariate analysis, robotic surgery was associated with higher hospital charges in colonic ($11,601.39; 95 % CI 6,921.82-16,280.97) and rectal cases ($12,964.90; 95 % CI 6,534.79-19,395.01), and higher rates of postoperative bleeding in colonic cases (OR = 2.15; 95 % CI 1.27- 3.65). RACS was similar to CLS with respect to length of hospital stay, morbidity, anastomotic leak, and ileus. Conversion to open surgery was significantly lower in robotic colonic and rectal procedures (0.41; 95 % CI 0.25-0.67) and (0.10; 95 % CI 0.06-0.16), respectively.
conclusionsThe use of RACS is still limited in the United States. However, its use increased over the study period despite higher associated charges and no real advantages over laparoscopy in terms of outcome. The one advantage is lower conversion rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23564216What 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.