ReviewInternational journal of clinical oncology2015
Recent advances in robotic surgery for rectal cancer.
Review in International journal of clinical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a predictive model for postoperative urinary dysfunction following robotic total mesorectal excision in mid-low rectal cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Safety and feasibility of novel single-port robotic systems in colorectal cancer surgery: a comparative study with the da Vinci Xi system.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the advantage of surgeons certified by the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system participating in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2024Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Small Interfering RNAs (siRNAs): Mechanism, Therapeutic Targets, and Delivery Strategies for Cancer Therapy.International journal of nanomedicine · 2023Review
- Recent developments in cancer research: Expectations for a new remedy.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2021Review
- The short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: comparison with open and laparoscopic surgery using a propensity score analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Article
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer in a single surgeon's experience: a cost analysis covering the initial 50 robotic cases with the da Vinci Si.International journal of colorectal disease · 2016Article
- The First Pilot Comprehensive Evaluation of the Outcomes of Different Types of Robotic Surgeries in the Different Surgical Departments: The Penta, Tetra and Trifecta Achievements in Robotic Surgeries.Yonago acta medica · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic technology, which has recently been introduced to the field of surgery, is expected to be useful, particularly in treating rectal cancer where precise manipulation is necessary in the confined pelvic cavity. Robotic surgery overcomes the technical drawbacks inherent to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer through the use of multi-articulated flexible tools, three-dimensional stable camera platforms, tremor filtering and motion scaling functions, and greater ergonomic and intuitive device manipulation. Assessments of the feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for rectal cancer have reported similar operation times, blood loss during surgery, rates of postoperative morbidity, and circumferential resection margin involvement when compared with laparoscopic surgery. Furthermore, rates of conversion to open surgery are reportedly lower with increased urinary and male sexual functions in the early postoperative period compared with laparoscopic surgery, demonstrating the technical advantages of robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, long-term outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery for rectal cancer have not been fully evaluated yet; therefore, large-scale clinical studies are required to evaluate the efficacy of this new technology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26059248What 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.