ReviewJournal of minimal access surgery
Current status of robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A bird's eye view.
Review in Journal of minimal access surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A prospective study on the enhancement of surgical safety in robotic surgery: The BirdView camera system.Surgery today · 2025Article
- Effective implementation and adaptation of structured robotic colorectal programme in a busy tertiary unit.Journal of robotic surgery · 2021Article
- Population demographics in geographic proximity to hospitals with robotic platforms do not correlate with disparities in access to robotic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- 4K ultra HD technology reduces operative time and intraoperative blood loss in colorectal laparoscopic surgery.F1000Research · 2020Article
- TME for rectal cancer: consecutive 70 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique-cumulative experience in a single centre.Updates in surgery · 2019Article
- Developing a robotic colorectal cancer surgery program: understanding institutional and individual learning curves.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Critical analysis of the literature investigating urogenital function preservation following robotic rectal cancer surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2016Article
- Dealing with robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current status and perspectives.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- Robotics in Colorectal Surgery.F1000Research · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer is now widely performed via the laparoscopic approach and has been validated in randomized controlled trials to be oncologically safe with better perioperative outcomes than open surgery including shorter length of stay, earlier return of bowel function, better cosmesis, and less analgesic requirement. Laparoscopic surgery, however, has inherent limitations due to two-dimensional vision, restricted instrument motion and a very long learning curve. Robotic surgery with its superb three-dimensional magnified optics, stable retraction platform and 7 degrees of freedom of instrument movement offers significant benefits during Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) including ease of operation, markedly lower conversion rates and better quality of the specimen in addition to shorter (steeper) learning curves. This review summarizes the current evidence for the adoption of robotic TME for rectal cancer with supporting data from the literature and from the authors' own experience. All relevant articles from PubMed using the search terms listed below and published between 2000 and 2014 including randomized trials, meta-analyses, prospective studies, and retrospective reviews with substantial numbers were included.
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.