SynthesisMedicine2017
The safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic TME in patients with rectal cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 8 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of robot-assisted surgical training in medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- Research progress of robot and laparoscope in postoperative complications of rectal cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of robotic‑assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Robotic bariatric surgery for the obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Pooled it
- Completeness of total mesorectum excision of laparoscopic versus robotic surgery: a review with a meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Pooled it
- Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018Guideline
- Skill transference and learning curves in novice learners: a randomized comparison of robotic and laparoscopic platforms.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Trial
- Comparison of laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomy: insights from a single centre.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
- Deep Learning-Based Prediction System for Surgical Difficulty in Rectal Cancer Patients Using MRI Pelvimetry.Yonsei medical journal · 2026Article
- Increasing robotic rectal cancer surgery may not increase total hospital costs.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Postoperative bladder training in patients with mid-low rectal cancer facilitates early removal of the urinary catheter: a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Short-term clinical outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted rectal resections: a multicenter real-world evidence study from Indian collaborative group on rectal resections (ICGRR).Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Longitudinal follow-up of sexual function after surgery for ultra-low rectal cancers located within 5 cm of the anal verge: A multicentre collaborative study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- Hospital volume-outcome relationships for robot-assisted surgeries: a population-based analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Technical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal tumors: a single-center safety and feasibility study.Surgery today · 2024Article
- The influence of the da Vinci surgical robot on electromagnetic tracking in a clinical environment.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Patient Reported Outcomes following Cancer of the Rectum (PROCaRe): protocol of a prospective multicentre international study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of science, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database up to July 2016 to identify case-controlled studies that compared robotic TME (RTME) with laparoscopic TME (LTME) for rectal cancer. GRADE was used to interpret the primary outcomes of this meta-analysis.
resultsWe included 17 case-control studies (3601 participants: 1726 underwent RTME and 1875 LTME for rectal cancer) that compared RTME with LTME for rectal cancer. We found no statistically significant differences between techniques for local recurrence [odds ratio (OR) = 0.68, P = .216] and overall survival at 3 years (OR = 0.71, P = 1.140), complications (OR = 1.02, P = .883), positive circumferential resection margin (PCRM) (OR = 0.80, P = .256), the first passing flatus [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.11, P = .130], reoperation (OR = 0.66, P = .080), estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD = -12.45, P = .500), and length of stay in hospital (LOS) (WMD = -0.69, P = .089). Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with lower rate of conversion (OR = 0.35, P < .001), urinary retention (OR = 0.41, P = .025), and longer operative time (WMD = 57.43, P < .001). The overall quality of evidence was poor in all outcomes.
conclusionRTME in patients with rectal cancer was associated with a lower rate of conversion and less incidence of urinary retention. Generally, operative time in RTME was significantly longer than in LTME. The long-term oncological and function outcomes of RTME seem to be equivalent with LTME. Therefore, analysis of current studies to date did not indicate a major benefit of RTME over LTME.
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.