ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2015
Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of short-term outcomes.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological, perioperative, and survival-related outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in high-risk patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Pooled it
- Short-term and long-term efficacy in robot-assisted treatment for mid and low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of robotic‑assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Impact of Surgical Approach on Surgical Resection Quality in Mid- and Low Rectal Cancer, A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Completeness of total mesorectum excision of laparoscopic versus robotic surgery: a review with a meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Pooled 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
- Pooled it
- Robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving resections have similar peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes in female patients with rectal cancer.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Robotic male and laparoscopic female sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer share similar specimen quality, complication rates and long-term oncological outcomes.Journal of robotic 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
- Short-term outcomes of robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Is robotic da Vinci Xi® superior to the da Vinci Si® for sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision? Outcomes in 150 mid-low rectal cancer patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Article
- 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
- The long-term oncological outcomes of the 140 robotic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a single surgeon experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2020Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of long-term outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2020Article
- Robotic total meso-rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review following the publication of the ROLARR trial.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2018Article
- Article
- Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of our study was to compare short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision (TME) in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer (RC) after neadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). The study was conducted as a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database, and we analyzed 14 robotic and 65 laparoscopic sphincter saving TME (R-TME and L-TME, respectively) performed by one surgeon between 2005 and 2013. Patient characteristics, perioperative recovery, postoperative complications and and pathology results were compared between the two groups. The patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Median operating time was longer in the R-TME than in the L-TME group (182 min versus 140 min). Only two conversions occurred in the L-TME group. No difference was found between groups regarding perioperative recovery and postoperative complication rates. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the RTME than in the L-TME group (32 versus 23, p = 0.008). The median circumferential margin (CRM) was 10 mm in the R-TME group, 6.5 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.047. The median distal resection margin (DRM) was 27.5 mm in the R-TME, 15 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.014). Macroscopic grading of the specimen in the R-TME group was complete in all patients. In the L-TME group, grading was complete in 52 (80%) and incomplete in 13 (20%) cases (p = 0.109). R-TME is a safe and feasible procedure that facilitates performing of TME in male patients with mid-low RC after NCRT.
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.