SynthesisScientific reports2016
Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 5 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of excess body weight on short-term outcomes following minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
- Quality of life in restorative versus non-restorative resections for rectal cancer: systematic review.BJS open · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of pathologic outcomes of robotic and open resections for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Pooled it
- Thymectomy via open surgery or robotic video assisted thoracic surgery: Can a recommendation already be made?Medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Optimizing Surgical Techniques for Anal Canal Duplications in 2 Pediatric Patients.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Outcomes comparison of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic and open surgery for patients undergoing rectal cancer resection with concurrent stoma creation.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Technical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal tumors: a single-center safety and feasibility study.Surgery today · 2024Article
- Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic versus Open Resection for Rectal Cancer in a Center with a Beginning Robotic Colorectal Surgery Program.Acta medica Philippina · 2024Article
- Robotic Revolution in Surgery: Diverse Applications Across Specialties and Future Prospects Review Article.Cureus · 2024Review
- Analysis of 10 years of open, laparoscopic, and robotic rectal surgeries in the community setting.Surgery open science · 2023Article
- Lower need for allogeneic blood transfusion after robotic low anterior resection compared with open low anterior resection: a propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Rectal Cancer Compared with Open and Laparoscopic Surgery.Cancers · 2023Review
- Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (India Chapter) and Indian rectal cancer expert group's practical consensus statements for surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Article
- [Robotic-assisted surgery of rectal cancer-Technique, limitations and results].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Review
- Do specific operative approaches and insurance status impact timely access to colorectal cancer care?Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Comparative Evaluation of the Short-Term Treatment Outcomes Between Open, Laparoscopic- and Robotic-Assisted Surgical Approaches for Rectal Cancer Treatment.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2020Article
- Robotics Total Mesorectal Excision Up To the Minute.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2020Review
- Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Review
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and open rectal cancer surgery (ORCS). Electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library) searches were conducted for all relevant studies that compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between RRCS and ORCS. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and hazard ratios were calculated. Seven studies involving 1074 patients with rectal cancer were identified for this meta-analysis. Compared with ORCS, RRCS is associated with a lower estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD]: -139.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -159.11 to -120.86; P < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay length (MD: -2.10, 95% CI: -3.47 to -0.73; P = 0.003), lower intraoperative transfusion requirements (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.99, P = 0.05), shorter time to flatus passage (MD: -0.97, 95% CI = -1.06 to -0.88, P < 0.00001), and shorter time to resume a normal diet (MD: -1.71.95% CI = -3.31 to -0.12, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in surgery-related complications, oncologic clearance, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the two groups. However, RRCS was associated with a longer operative time. RRCS is safe and effective.
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.