ReviewTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2016
A review on robotic surgery in rectal cancer.
Review in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Robotic Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (RTaTME): State of the Art.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Assessment of Anastomotic Perfusion in Left-Sided Robotic Assisted Colorectal Resection by Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Angiography.Minimally invasive surgery · 2019Article
- Robotic total meso-rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review following the publication of the ROLARR trial.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2018Article
- Inguinal hernia repair: is there a benefit to using the robot?Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic surgery has the upper hand when compared to the laparoscopic approach in terms of superior visualisation, flexibility in movement, steadiness and accessibility to confined anatomical spaces. Nevertheless, limitations still exist with regards to cost, reduced tactile sensation, time-consuming setup and a significant learning curve to achieve. Although studies have shown better or at least comparable outcomes between the robotic and laparoscopic approach, the limitations mentioned result in poor penetrance among centres and surgeons. Advancements in robotic surgery technology and attaining the acquired skillset will translate into better clinical outcomes for 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.