ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2016
Dealing with robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current status and perspectives.
Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical outcomes in pelvic reconstruction using robot-assisted rectus abdominis muscle flaps: a systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Pooled it
- Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: an overview of systematic reviews with quality assessment of current evidence.Updates in surgery · 2020Pooled it
- The perioperative dynamics of IL-7 following robot-assisted and open colorectal surgery.Scientific reports · 2018Trial
- Impact of surgical site infection on short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery: a two-center retrospective study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Efficacy comparison of optimal natural orifice specimen extraction for robotic middle rectal cancer resection in women: transanal or transvaginal orifice.World journal of surgical oncology · 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
- Implementation of a robotic surgical practice in inflammatory bowel disease.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- The Dresden Surgical Anatomy Dataset for Abdominal Organ Segmentation in Surgical Data Science.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Outcomes of robotic low anterior resection versus transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.BJS open · 2021Article
- Augmented Reality: Moving Robotics Forward.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2021Review
- Current status of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison with laparoscopic gastrectomy.Updates in surgery · 2021Review
- Using psychological interventions in the nursing care of rectal cancer patients.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2020Article
- Distinct Chemokine Dynamics in Early Postoperative Period after Open and Robotic Colorectal Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Robotics in Cleft Surgery: Origins, Current Status and Future Directions.Robotic surgery (Auckland) · 2019Review
- Robotic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients may lead to better short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopy: a comparative propensity scored match study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Article
- Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision with the single-docking technique for patients with rectal cancer.BMC surgery · 2017Article
- Evolution of Surgical Treatment for Rectal Cancer: a Review.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2017Review
- Recent advances in the management of rectal cancer: No surgery, minimal surgery or minimally invasive surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The laparoscopic approach for treatment of rectal cancer has been proven feasible and oncologically safe, and is able to offer better short-term outcomes than traditional open procedures, mainly in terms of reduced length of hospital stay and time to return to working activity. In spite of this, the laparoscopic technique is usually practised only in high-volume experienced centres, mainly because it requires a prolonged and demanding learning curve. It has been estimated that over 50 operations are required for an experienced colorectal surgeon to achieve proficiency with this technique. Robotic surgery enables the surgeon to perform minimally invasive operations with better vision and more intuitive and precise control of the operating instruments, thus promising to overcome some of the technical difficulties associated with standard laparoscopy. It has high-definition three-dimensional vision, it translates the surgeon's hand movements into precise movements of the instruments inside the patient, the camera is held and moved by the first surgeon, and a fourth robotic arm is available as a fixed retractor. The aim of this review is to summarise the current data on clinical and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer, focusing on short- and long-term results, and providing original data from the authors' centre.
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.