ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2017
Robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes at a single center.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- The KRAS G12D mutation increases the risk of unresectable recurrence of resectable colorectal liver-only metastasis.Surgery today · 2025Article
- Beyond total mesorectal excision: The emerging role of minimally invasive surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Low Hartmann's procedure versus abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, a propensity score matching cohort study.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancers: Perioperative and oncological outcomes from a multicentre case series.European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2024Article
- Streamlining robotic-assisted abdominoperineal resection.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Propensity matched analysis of robotic and laparoscopic operations for mid-low rectal cancer: short-term comparison of anal function and oncological outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Robotic surgery for locally advanced T4 rectal cancer: feasibility and oncological quality.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Advantages of robotic abdominoperineal resection compared with laparoscopic surgery: a single-center retrospective study.Surgery today · 2022Article
- Robotic surgery for clinical T4 rectal cancer: short- and long-term outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Robotic-assisted resection for beyond TME rectal cancer: a novel classification and analysis from a specialized center.Updates in surgery · 2021Article
- Robotic-assisted surgery may be a useful approach to protect urinary function in the modern era of diverse surgical approaches for rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Robotic extralevator abdominoperineal resection with en bloc multivisceral resection and lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer.Techniques in coloproctology · 2020Article
- Effect of preoperative chemoradiotherapy on the immunological status of rectal cancer patients.Journal of radiation research · 2020Article
- Combined robotic and cystoscopic surgery for rectal cancer invading urinary bladder.International cancer conference journal · 2020Article
- Feasibility of robotic assisted bladder sparing pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer: A single institution case series.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2020Article
- Resection of the urinary bladder for locally advanced colorectal cancer: a retrospective comparison of partial versus total cystectomy.BMC surgery · 2019Article
- Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current state and future perspective.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for locally advanced rectal cancer remain unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes of this procedure at our institution.
methodsFrom December 2011 to December 2016, patients who underwent robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer were investigated. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and pathological results were evaluated retrospectively.
resultsThere were 31 patients; 17 men (54.8%) and 14 women (45.2%), with a median age of 65 years (range 40-82 years). Twenty-one patients (67.7%) had a cT4 tumor, 9 patients (29.0%) had a pT4b tumor, and all patients except one (96.8%) underwent complete resection of the primary tumor with negative resection margins. Eleven patients (35.5%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The most commonly resected organ was the vaginal wall (n = 12, 38.7%), followed by the prostate (n = 10, 32.3%). Lateral lymph node dissection was performed in 20 patients (64.5%). The median operative time was 394 min (range 189-549 min), and the median blood loss was 41 mL (range 0-502 mL). None of the patients received intraoperative blood transfusions or required conversion to open. Overall, postoperative complications occurred in 11 patients (35.5%). The most frequent complication was urinary retention (n = 5, 16.1%), and none of the patients developed serious complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grades III-V.
conclusionsRobotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer is safe and technically feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29134385What 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.