ReviewEcancermedicalscience2013
The role of the robotic technique in minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer.
Review in Ecancermedicalscience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of Kymerax© precision-drive articulating surgical system compared to conventional laparoscopic instruments in a pelvitrainer model.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Trial
- Understanding and acceptance of open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery among nursing students: implications for educational curricula based on a mixed-methods study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Breast Surgery: Recent Evidence with Comparative Clinical Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Full robotic multivisceral resections: the Modena experience and literature review.Updates in surgery · 2021Review
- Robotics Total Mesorectal Excision Up To the Minute.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2020Review
- The volume-outcome relationship in robotic protectectomy: does center volume matter? Results of a national cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Robot-assisted surgery for the radical treatment of deep infiltrating endometriosis with colorectal involvement: short- and mid-term surgical and functional outcomes.International journal of colorectal disease · 2016Article
- Emerging and Evolving Technology in Colon and Rectal Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2015Review
- The Role of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Overcoming Technical Challenges in Laparoscopic Surgery by Advanced Techniques.Journal of Korean medical science · 2015Review
- Laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision in the treatment of rectal cancer. Brief review and personal remarks.Frontiers in oncology · 2014Review
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
Laparoscopic rectal surgery is feasible, oncologically safe, and offers better short-term outcomes than traditional open procedures in terms of pain control, recovery of bowel function, length of hospital stay, and time until return to working activity. Nevertheless, laparoscopic techniques are not widely used in rectal surgery, mainly because they require a prolonged and demanding learning curve that is available only in high-volume and rectal cancer surgery centres experienced in minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery is a new technology that enables the surgeon to perform minimally invasive operations with better vision and more intuitive and precise control of the operating instruments, promising to overcome some of the technical difficulties associated with standard laparoscopy. The aim of this review is to summarise the current data on clinical and oncological outcomes of minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer, focusing on robotic surgery, and providing original data from the authors' centre.
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.