ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2013
Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of oncologic outcomes.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 8 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer: meta-analysis of pathological quality indicators.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological, perioperative, and survival-related outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in high-risk patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of robotic‑assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of Robot-assistedIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsPooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Short-term outcomes of single-port robotic surgery versus single-port laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: a multicenter matched-cohort analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Racing toward the future of robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery: a comparative study of hinotori and da Vinci.Annals of coloproctology · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Outcomes in robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery in a newly established colorectal tertiary center: a retrospective comparative cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Analysis of Clinical and Financial Outcomes from a Tertiary Referral Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Short-term outcomes of robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- The long-term oncological outcomes of the 140 robotic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a single surgeon experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2020Article
- Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of long-term outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2020Article
- Oncological Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Surgery With High Dissection and Selective Ligation Technique for Sigmoid Colon and Rectal Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMinimal invasive surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) can be challenging. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic resections in mid and low rectal cancers after LCRT.
methodsBetween Jan 2006 and Dec 2010, all patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic resections for mid and low rectal cancers after LCRT were identified from a prospective database. These patients received treatment (5FU-based chemotherapy, 50.4 Gy radiotherapy), as they were T3 or T4 and/or node + ve. Patients in the two groups were compared with respect to demographics, clinical safety, and oncological outcomes.
resultsOne hundred thirty-eight patients underwent rectal cancer resection after LCRT, either robotic (n = 74) or laparoscopic (n = 64). The patients in both groups were comparable in terms of demographics, distance of tumor from anal verge, and type of procedures. There were four (6.3 %) conversions in laparoscopic group and one (1.4 %) in the robotic group (p = 0.183). The morbidity rates in the laparoscopic and robotic group were 26.6 % and 16.2 %, respectively (p = 0.137). With a median follow up of 3 years, the local recurrence in the laparoscopic and robotic group was four (6.3 %) and two (2.7 %), respectively (p = 0.420). The 3-year overall survival rate for laparoscopic and robotic group was 92.1 and 90.0 %, respectively (p = 0.803). The 3-year disease-free survival was also comparable, 78.8 % (laparoscopic) versus 77.7 % (robotic) (p = 0.390).
conclusionWith a median follow up of 3 years, robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer was associated with oncological outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.