ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 4 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
71 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 144 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing the efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery in obese patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic vs. laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception: a systematic review.Techniques in coloproctology · 2019Pooled it
- What have we learned in minimally invasive colorectal surgery from NSQIP and NIS large databases? A systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Pooled it
- Systematic review of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Pooled it
- Comparison of inflammatory responses following robotic and open colorectal surgery: a prospective study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2017Trial
- Learning curve analysis of laparoscopic low anterior resection using the ArtiSential multi-articulating device: a multicenter retrospective cohort study with pooled analysis (STARC trial).Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2026Article
- Endoscopic recurrence of Crohn's disease following laparoscopic versus robotic ileocolic resection.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Review
- Current Evidence in Robotic Colorectal Surgery.Cancers · 2025Review
- Short-term outcomes and the learning curve for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy using the ArtiSential: a multicenter pooled analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Feasibility, clinical outcomes, and learning curves of robotic-assisted colorectal cancer surgery in a high-volume district general hospital: a cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Article
- Robotic left colectomy and intracorporeal overlap anastomosis for descending-sigmoid cancer with da Vinci Xi® robotic platform-a video vignette.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Article
- Early discharge after enhanced recovery rectal resection does not increase emergency department visits and readmissions: a single institution analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Development of performance and learning rate evaluation models in robot-assisted surgery using electroencephalography and eye-tracking.NPJ science of learning · 2024Article
- The robotic NICE procedure outperforms conventional laparoscopic extracorporeal-assisted colorectal resection: results of a matched cohort analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Performance and learning rate prediction models development in FLS and RAS surgical tasks using electroencephalogram and eye gaze data and machine learning.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- A retrospective comparison of 90-day outcomes, length of stay, and readmissions between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Clinical outcomes of elective robotic vs laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer utilizing a large national database.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Robot-assisted general surgery is safe during the learning curve: a 5-year Australian experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
11 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUntil randomized trials mature, large database analyses assist in determining the role of robotics in colorectal surgery. ACS NSQIP database coding now allows differentiation between laparoscopic (LC) and robotic (RC) colorectal procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare LC and RC outcomes by analyzing the ACS NSQIP database.
methodsThe ACS NSQIP database was queried to identify patients who had undergone RC and LC during 2013. Demographic characteristics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were identified. Using propensity score matching, abdominal and pelvic colorectal operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.
resultsA total of 11,477 cases were identified. In the abdomen, 7790 LC and 299 RC cases were identified, and 2057 LC and 331 RC cases were identified in the pelvis. There were significant differences in operative time, conversion to an open procedure in the pelvis, and hospital length of stay. RC operative times were significantly longer in both abdominal and pelvic cases. Conversion rates in the pelvis were less for RC when compared to LC--10.0 and 13.7%, respectively (p = 0.01). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for RC abdominal cases than for LC abdominal cases (4.3 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001) and for RC pelvic cases when compared to LC pelvic cases (4.5 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, wound complications, anastomotic leak, sepsis/shock, or need for reoperation within 30 days.
conclusionAs the robotic platform continues to grow in colorectal surgery and as technical upgrades continue to advance, comparison of outcomes requires continuous reevaluation. This study demonstrated that robotic operations have longer operative times, decreased hospital length of stay, and decreased rates of conversion to open in the pelvis. These findings warrant continued evaluation of the role of minimally invasive technical upgrades in colorectal 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.