Observational studyInternational journal of colorectal disease2017
Robot-assisted intersphincteric resection facilitates an efficient sphincter-saving in patients with low rectal cancer.
Observational study in International journal of colorectal disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical progress and technological innovations in sphincter-preserving treatment for ultra-low rectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for middle or lower rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- The Review of Modified Intersphincteric Resection in the Treatment of Ultra-Low Rectal Cancer.Current treatment options in oncology · 2025Review
- Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive and open radical resection for rectal cancer: comparison of short-term outcomes in elderly/frail patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic vs. laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a case matched study reporting a median of 7-year long-term oncological and functional outcomes.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Article
- Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes.Annals of coloproctology · 2021Review
- Surgical Treatment of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: Updates.Annals of coloproctology · 2021Review
- Review
- Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Hype or Hope? (Indian Experience).Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2020Article
- Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Current Evidences and Future Perspectives.Annals of coloproctology · 2020Review
- Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer and Cost-Effectiveness.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2019Review
- Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current state and future perspective.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2018Review
- Critical and Challenging Issues in the Surgical Management of Low-Lying Rectal Cancer.Yonsei medical journal · 2018Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFew investigations of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection (ISR) are presently available to support this procedure as a safe and efficient procedure. We aimed to evaluate the utility of robot-assisted ISR by comparison between ISR and abdominoperineal resection (APR) using both robot-assisted and open approaches.
methodsThe 558 patients with lower rectal cancer (LRC) who underwent curative operation was enrolled between July 2010 and June 2015 to perform either by robot-assisted (ISR vs. APR = 310 vs. 34) or open approaches (144 vs. 70). Perioperative and functional outcomes including urogenital and anorectal dysfunctions were measured. Recurrence and survival were examined in 216 patients in which >3 years had elapsed after the operation.
resultsThe robot-assisted approach was the most significant parameter to determine ISR achievement among potent parameters (OR = 3.467, 95% CI = 2.095-5.738, p < 0.001). Early surgical complications occurred more frequently in the open ISR group (16 vs. 7.7%, p = 0.01). The voiding and male sexual dysfunctions were significantly more frequent in the open ISR (p < 0.05). The fecal incontinence and lifestyle alteration score was greater in the open ISR than in the robot-assisted ISR at 12 and 24 months, respectively (p < 0.05). However, the 3-year cumulative rates of local recurrence and survival did not differ between the two groups.
conclusionsThe current procedure of robot-assisted ISR replaced a significant portion of APR to achieve successful SSO via mostly transabdominal approach and double-stapled anastomosis. The robot-assisted ISR with minimal invasiveness might be a help to reduce anorectal and urogenital dysfunctions.
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.