SynthesisPloS one2015
Robotic versus Laparoscopic Approach in Colonic Resections for Cancer and Benign Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 9 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
65 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA): a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review of the evidence.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy in colon cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2024Pooled it
- Short-term outcomes in robot-assisted compared to laparoscopic colon cancer resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Pooled it
- Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Pooled it
- Simultaneous Robot Assisted Colon and Liver Resection for Metastatic Colon Cancer.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsPooled it
- Comparison of laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomy: insights from a single centre.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
- Safe Implementation of Robotic Colorectal Surgery: Balancing Surgical Training and Patient Safety with the Dual-Console System.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Short-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: A multicenter propensity score-matched study.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Article
- Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Approaches-A Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A propensity score-matched NSQIP analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy in inflammatory bowel disease.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Initial experience in colorectal robotic surgery in a university hospital: the first 100 consecutive cases using Hugo™ RAS platform.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Right Colon Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Morphogenesis and Topography of the Mesorectal Fascia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
5 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic colectomy (RC) with laparoscopic colectomy (LC) in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic literature search was performed to retrieve comparative studies of robotic and laparoscopic colectomy. The databases searched were PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2000 to October 2014. The Odds ratio, Risk difference and Mean difference were used as the summary statistics.
resultsA total of 12 studies, which included a total of 4,148 patients who had undergone robotic or laparoscopic colectomy, were included and analyzed. RC demonstrated a longer operative time (MD 41.52, P<0.00001) and higher cost (MD 2.42, P<0.00001) than did LC. The time to first flatus passage (MD -0.51, P = 0.003) and the length of hospital stay (MD -0.68, P = 0.01) were significantly shorter after RC. Additionally, the intraoperative blood loss (MD -16.82, P<0.00001) was significantly less in RC. There was also a significantly lower incidence of overall postoperative complications (OR 0.74, P = 0.02) and wound infections (RD -0.02, P = 0.03) after RC. No differences in the postoperative ileus, in the anastomotic leak, or in the conversion to open surgery rate and in the number of harvested lymph nodes outcomes were found between the approaches.
conclusionsThe present meta-analysis, mainly based on observational studies, suggests that RC is more time-consuming and expensive than laparoscopy but that it results in faster recovery of bowel function, a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower rates of both overall postoperative complications and wound infections.
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.