Observational studyDiseases of the colon and rectum2016
Adoption of Robotic Technology for Treating Colorectal Cancer.
Observational study in Diseases of the colon and rectum, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Pooled it
- Disparities in robot utilization in colorectal surgery: the widening gap.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Dynamic machine learning model integrating resting energy expenditure for predicting postoperative complications after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Development of a predictive score for prolonged pelvic operation time in robot-assisted low anterior resection: a single-center, retrospective study in Japan.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Feasibility of the hinotori™ surgical robot system in right colectomy: a propensity score matching study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Development of an evaluation framework for robotic total mesorectal excision videos: a review and comparison of medical professional and public video resources.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Review
- Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in colorectal cancer management: a narrative review of clinical efficacy and multidisciplinary integration.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Laparoscopic vs. robotic colectomy for left-sided diverticulitis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Robotic surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer: Review of the current literature.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Review
- Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic approach of Bai-Jiang-style vagus nerve-preserving splenectomy and azygoportal disconnection.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- Contemporary, national patterns of surgery after preoperative therapy for stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence for the early detection of colorectal cancer: A comprehensive review of its advantages and misconceptions.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Safety with Innovation in Colon and Rectal Robotic Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2021Review
- Evaluating the Regional Uptake of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery: a Report from the Surgical Care Outcomes Assessment Program.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021Article
- Hospital robotic use for colorectal cancer care.Journal of robotic surgery · 2021Article
- Ureteral injuries in colorectal surgery and the impact of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Robotic colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis is feasible with no operative conversions during the learning curve for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon developing a robotics program.Journal of robotic surgery · 2019Article
- The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery.Current gastroenterology reports · 2019Review
- A Comparison of Pathologic Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Resections for Rectal Cancer Using the ACS-NSQIP Proctectomy-Targeted Database: a Propensity Score Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Article
- Low confidence levels with the robotic platform among senior surgical residents: simulation training is needed.Journal of robotic surgery · 2019Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDebate exists regarding the role of robotic-assisted surgery in colorectal cancer. Robotic-assisted surgery has been promoted as a strategy to increase the availability of minimally invasive surgery, which is associated with improved short-term morbidity; however, robotic-assisted surgery is much more expensive than laparoscopic surgery.
objectiveWe aimed to understand hospital and patient trends in the adoption of robotic-assisted surgery.
designThe study used cross-sectional and longitudinal designs. SETTINGS: The study included 2010 and 2012 American Hospital Association surveys, as well as the 2010-2012 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. PATIENTS: US hospitals responding to the American Hospital Association survey were included to measure patients with colorectal cancer who were undergoing elective minimally invasive surgery or open resection.
main outcome measuresRobotic-assisted surgery adoption by US hospitals was measured, regarding specifically patients with colorectal cancer who were treated with robotic surgery.
resultsIn 2010, 20.1% of hospitals adopted robotic-assisted surgery, increasing to 27.4% by 2012. Hospitals more likely to adopt robotic-assisted surgery included teaching hospitals, those with more advanced imaging services, those in metropolitan rather than rural areas, and those performing the highest inpatient surgery volume. Robotic-assisted surgery only accounted for 1.3% of colorectal cancer operations during 2010-2012, but patient probability of robotic-assisted surgery ranged from 0.1% to 15.2%. The percentage of patients with colorectal cancer who were treated robotically among those undergoing minimally invasive surgery increased over time (2010, 1.5%; 2012, 3.6%). Robotic-assisted surgery is increasing more rapidly for patients with rectal cancer with minimally invasive surgery (2010, 5.5%; 2012, 13.3%) versus patients with colon cancer treated with minimally invasive surgery (2010, 1.3%; 2012, 3.3%). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its observational study design.
conclusionsRobotic-assisted surgery uptake remains low for colon cancer but higher for rectal cancer surgery, suggesting a more thoughtful adoption of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer by focusing its use on more technically challenging cases.
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.