ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2016
Comparative analysis focusing on surgical and early oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopy-assisted, and robot-assisted approaches in rectal cancer patients.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 6 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled 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
- 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
- Meta-analysis of Robot-assistedIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Pooled it
- Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for middle or lower rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Article
- Safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for old rectal cancer patients.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Minimally invasive versus open intersphincteric resection of low rectal cancer regardless of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: long-term oncologic outcomes.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Outcomes in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection compared to open: a propensity-matched analysis of the NCDB (2010-2015).Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Current Evidences and Future Perspectives.Annals of coloproctology · 2020Review
- Article
- Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Operative Technique and Review of the Literature.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2020Review
- Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: results of a single high-volume center in Japan.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Article
- Robotic total meso-rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review following the publication of the ROLARR trial.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2018Article
- The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center.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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBecause there are few comparative studies of open, laparoscopy-assisted (LA), and robot-assisted (RA) total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, we aimed to compare these three procedures in terms of sphincter-saving operation (SSO) achievement, surgical complications, and early oncological outcomes.
methodsThe short-term outcomes of 2114 patients with rectal cancer consecutively enrolled between July 2010 and February 2015 at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea) were retrospectively evaluated. Patients underwent either open, LA, or RA TME (n = 1095, 486, and 533, respectively) performed by experienced surgeons.
resultsRA TME was a significant determinant of SSO in multivariate analysis that included potential variables such as tumor location and T4 category (odds ratio, 2.458; 95 % confidence interval, 1.497-4.036; p < 0.001). The cumulative rates of 3-year local recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival did not differ among the three groups: 2.5-3.4, 91.9-94.6, and 82.2-83.1 % (p = 0.85, 0.352, and 0.944, respectively). Early general surgical complications occurred more frequently in the open group than in the LA and RA groups (19.3 versus 13.0 versus 12.2 %, p < 0.001), specifically ileus and wound infection.
conclusionsThere were no significant differences in 3-year survival outcomes and local recurrence among open, LA, and RA TME. RA TME is useful for SSO achievement, regardless of advanced stage and location of rectal cancer. The open procedure had a slightly but significantly higher incidence of postoperative complications than LA and RA.
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.