ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2016
Comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes between robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Thymectomy via open surgery or robotic video assisted thoracic surgery: Can a recommendation already be made?Medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Comparison of laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomy: insights from a single centre.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
- Current Evidence in Robotic Colorectal Surgery.Cancers · 2025Review
- Comparison of outcome and costs of robotic and laparoscopic right hemicolectomies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Article
- Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Review
- Robotic surgery in colorectal cancer: the way forward or a passing fad.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2019Review
- The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery.Current gastroenterology reports · 2019Review
- Does robotic rectal cancer surgery improve the results of experienced laparoscopic surgeons? An observational single institution study comparing 168 robotic assisted with 184 laparoscopic rectal resections.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeReports from several case series have described the feasibility and safety of robotic surgery (RS) for colonic cancer. Experience is still limited in robotic colonic surgery, and a few meta-analysis has been conducted to integrate the results for colon cancer specifically. We conducted a systematic review of the available evidence comparing the surgical safety and efficacy of RS with that of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer.
methodsWe searched English databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library), and Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi). Dichotomous variables were pooled using the risk ratio, and continuous variables were pooled using the mean difference (MD).
resultsThe present study found that the RS group had a shorter time to resumption of a regular diet (MD, -0.62 days; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.28), first passage of flatus (MD, -0.44 days; 95% CI, -0.66 to -0.23) and defecation (MD, -0.62 days; 95% CI, -0.77 to -0.47). Also, RS was associated with a shorter hospital stay (MD, -0.69 days; 95% CI, -1.12 to -0.26), a lower estimated blood loss (MD, -19.49 mL; 95% CI, -27.10 to -11.89) and a longer proximal margin (MD, 2.29 cm; 95% CI, 1.11-3.47). However, RS was associated with a longer surgery time (MD, 51.00 minutes; 95% CI, 39.38-62.62).
conclusionWe found that the potential benefits of perioperative and short-term outcomes for RS than for CLS. For a more accurate understanding of RS for colonic cancer patients, robust comparative studies and randomized clinical trials are required.
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.