ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2016
Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art.
Review in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study on surgical outcomes and long-term survival.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Implementation of robotic rectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional nationwide study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Spatiotemporal Modeling of Grip Forces Captures Proficiency in Manual Robot Control.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Application of the advance incision in robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Review
- Outcomes of robotic low anterior resection versus transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.BJS open · 2021Article
- Short-term outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted Total Gastrectomy for advanced gastric Cancer: a propensity score matching study.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- Size and lipid modification determine liposomal Indocyanine green performance for tumor imaging in a model of rectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer results in a significantly higher quality of TME specimen compared to the laparoscopic approach-report of a single-center experience.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Article
- Effect of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparison of short-term outcomes with laparoscopic and open surgeries.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: case-matched comparison of short-term surgical and functional outcomes between the da Vinci Xi and Si.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs.International journal of colorectal disease · 2017Observational
- Comparison of analgesic requirements in robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic abdominal surgeries.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic rectal surgery has demonstrated its superiority over the open approach, however it still has some technical limitations that lead to the development of robotic platforms. Nevertheless the literature on this topic is rapidly expanding there is still no consensus about benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over the laparoscopic one. For this reason a review of all the literature examining robotic surgery for rectal cancer was performed. Two reviewers independently conducted a search of electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) using the key words "rectum", "rectal", "cancer", "laparoscopy", "robot". After the initial screen of 266 articles, 43 papers were selected for review. A total of 3013 patients were included in the review. The most commonly performed intervention was low anterior resection (1450 patients, 48.1%), followed by anterior resections (997 patients, 33%), ultra-low anterior resections (393 patients, 13%) and abdominoperineal resections (173 patients, 5.7%). Robotic rectal surgery seems to offer potential advantages especially in low anterior resections with lower conversions rates and better preservation of the autonomic function. Quality of mesorectum and status of and circumferential resection margins are similar to those obtained with conventional laparoscopy even if robotic rectal surgery is undoubtedly associated with longer operative times. This review demonstrated that robotic rectal surgery is both safe and feasible but there is no evidence of its superiority over laparoscopy in terms of postoperative, clinical outcomes and incidence of complications. In conclusion robotic rectal surgery seems to overcome some of technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery especially for tumors requiring low and ultra-low anterior resections but this technical improvement seems not to provide, until now, any significant clinical advantages to the patients.
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.