Trial reportTrials2018
Exploring and adjusting for potential learning effects in ROLARR: a randomised controlled trial comparing robotic-assisted vs. standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection.
Trial report in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 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
60 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer: meta-analysis of pathological quality indicators.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, and mortality.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Pooled it
- Functional outcomes after laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Pooled it
- Prophylactic abdominal or retroperitoneal drain placement in major uro-oncological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on radical prostatectomy, cystectomy and partial nephrectomy.World journal of urology · 2020Pooled it
- Investigating the presence of surgical learning in the Timing of Primary Surgery for cleft palate randomised trial.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2025Trial
- Beyond total operative time: phase-specific robotic efficiency and postoperative morbidity following colorectal resection - a multisurgeon cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparing the Oncologic and Surgical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Robotic surgery for rectal cancer in 2026: a hierarchical appraisal of the evidence.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Analyzing the switch from laparoscopic to robotic surgery for diverticular disease: a comparative cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of transanal total mesorectal excision and robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: an inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- The rise of robotics: Surgical approaches for rectal cancer over time.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Review
- Learning Curve for Robotic Colorectal Surgery.Cancers · 2024Review
- [Robotic rectal surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommonly in surgical randomised controlled trials (RCT) the experimental treatment is a relatively new technique which the surgeons may still be learning, while the control is a well-established standard. This can lead to biased comparisons between treatments. In this paper we discuss the implementation of approaches for addressing this issue in the ROLARR trial, and points of consideration for future surgical trials.
methodsROLARR was an international, randomised, parallel-group trial comparing robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was conversion to open surgery (binary). A surgeon inclusion criterion mandating a minimum level of experience in each technique was incorporated. Additionally, surgeon self-reported data were collected periodically throughout the trial to capture the level of experience of every participating surgeon. Multi-level logistic regression adjusting for operating surgeon as a random effect is used to estimate the odds ratio for conversion to open surgery between the treatment groups. We present and contrast the results from the primary analysis, which did not account for learning effects, and a sensitivity analysis which did.
resultsThe primary analysis yields an estimated odds ratio (robotic/laparoscopic) of 0.614 (95% CI 0.311, 1.211; p = 0.16), providing insufficient evidence to conclude superiority of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic in terms of the risk of conversion to open. The sensitivity analysis reveals that while participating surgeons in ROLARR were expert at laparoscopic surgery, some, if not all, were still learning robotic surgery. The treatment-effect odds ratio decreases by a factor of 0.341 (95% CI 0.121, 0.960; p = 0.042) per unit increase in log-number of previous robotic operations performed by the operating surgeon. The odds ratio for a patient whose operating surgeon has the mean experience level in ROLARR - 152.46 previous laparoscopic, 67.93 previous robotic operations - is 0.40 (95% CI 0.168, 0.953; p = 0.039).
conclusionsIn this paper we have demonstrated the implementation of approaches for accounting for learning in a practical example of a surgery RCT analysis. The results demonstrate the value of implementing such approaches, since we have shown that without them the ROLARR analysis would indeed have been confounded by the learning effects.
trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry, ID: ISRCTN80500123. Registered on 27 May 2010.
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.