ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2016
Total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: Laparoscopic vs robotic surgery.
Article 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 43 papers, 10 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer: meta-analysis of pathological quality indicators.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials evaluating functional recovery, complication risk, and oncologic quality.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted transabdominal total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision: which approach offers optimal short-term outcomes for mid-to-low rectal adenocarcinoma?Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled 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
- Pooled 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
- Comparative perioperative outcomes of articulated versus conventional straight devices in laparoscopic low anterior resection: a propensity score-matched analysis.Annals of coloproctology · 2025Article
- Review
- Robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer shows similar clinical efficacy to laparoscopic surgery: A propensity score matched study.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Comparing short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer in elderly patients.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Is Robotic Surgery Beneficial for Rectal Cancer Patients with Unfavorable Characteristic After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy?Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Nomogram for predicting the surgical difficulty of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision and exploring the technical advantages of robotic surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Nomogram for predicting prolonged postoperative ileus after laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Analysis of 10 years of open, laparoscopic, and robotic rectal surgeries in the community setting.Surgery open science · 2023Article
- Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery I-type F methodWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- Robotic Rectal Resection for Rectal Cancer in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.
methodsThis is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database containing 111 patients who underwent minimally invasive rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) with curative intent between January 2008 and December 2014 (robot, n = 53; laparoscopy, n = 58). The patients all had a diagnosis of middle and low rectal adenocarcinoma with stage I-III disease. The median follow-up period was 37.4 mo. Perioperative results, morbidity a pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were calculated and compared.
resultsPatients were comparable in terms of preoperative and demographic parameters. The median surgery time was 192 min for laparoscopic TME (L-TME) and 342 min for robotic TME (R-TME) (P < 0.001). There were no differences found in the rates of conversion to open surgery and morbidity. The patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery stayed in the hospital two days longer than the robotic group patients (8 d for L-TME and 6 d for R-TME, P < 0.001). The pathologic evaluation showed a higher number of harvested lymph nodes in the robotic group (18 for R-TME, 11 for L-TME, P < 0.001) and a shorter distal resection margin for laparoscopic patients (1.5 cm for L-TME, 2.5 cm for R-TME, P < 0.001). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups.
conclusionBoth L-TME and R-TME achieved acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in rectal surgery that should be validated by further studies.
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.