Observational studyMedicine2015
Short and long-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched retrospective study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 7 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
66 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer: meta-analysis of pathological quality indicators.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
- The Frequency of Urination Dysfunction in Patients Operated on for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted transabdominal total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision: which approach offers optimal short-term outcomes for mid-to-low rectal adenocarcinoma?Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- Laparoscopic vs. robotic rectal cancer surgery and the effect on conversion rates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies.Techniques in coloproctology · 2019Pooled 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
- Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Approaches-A Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison of clinical outcomes and quality of life for robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with mid-low rectal cancer: a multicenter cohort study with inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for middle or lower rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Minimally Invasive Rectal Surgery: Current Status and Future Perspectives in the Era of Digital Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: single-center, retrospective, propensity score analyses.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic versus Open Resection for Rectal Cancer in a Center with a Beginning Robotic Colorectal Surgery Program.Acta medica Philippina · 2024Article
- Robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving resections have similar peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes in female patients with rectal cancer.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis.Asian journal of endoscopic surgery · 2022Article
- Current status and role of robotic approach in patients with low-lying rectal cancer.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2022Review
- Review
- Da Vinci SP robotic approach to colorectal surgery: two specific indications and short-term results.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Article
6 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The true benefits of robotic surgery are controversial, and whether robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) can be justified as a standard treatment for rectal cancer patients needs to be clarified. This case-matched study aimed to compare the postoperative complications and short- and long-term outcomes of R-TME and laparoscopic TME (L-TME) for rectal cancer.Among 1029 patients, we identified 278 rectal cancer patients who underwent R-TME. Propensity score matching was used to match this group with 278 patients who underwent L-TME.The mean follow-up period was similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 52.5 ± 17.1 vs 51.0 ± 13.1 months, P = 0.253), as were patient characteristics. The operation time was significantly longer in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group (361.6 ± 91.9 vs 272.4 ± 83.8 min; P < 0.001), whereas the conversion rate, length of hospital stay, and recovery of pain and bowel motility were similar between both groups. The rates of circumferential resection margin involvement and early complications were similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 4.7% vs 5.0%, P = 1.000; and 23.7% vs 25.9%, P = 0.624, respectively), as were the 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence rates (93.1% vs 92.2%, P = 0.422; 79.6% vs 81.8%, P = 0.538; 3.9% vs 5.9%, P = 0.313, respectively).The oncologic quality, short- and long-term outcomes, and postoperative morbidity in the R-TME group were comparable with those in the L-TME group.
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.