ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Comparison of early experience of robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision using propensity score matching.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 7 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary Committee Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Guideline
- EAES, ESCP, and ESGAR update on taTME for rectal cancer-systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Transanal versus transabdominal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in minimally invasive surgery: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing the perioperative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes between robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies with a subgroup analysis for overweight patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes of robotic versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision versus transanal total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted transabdominal total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision: which approach offers optimal short-term outcomes for mid-to-low rectal adenocarcinoma?Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- 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
- Anorectal and urogenital functional outcome after robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Outcomes of open vs laparoscopic vs robotic vs transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Review
- Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: it's come a long way and here to stay.Annals of coloproctology · 2022Review
- Robotic or transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) approach for rectal cancer, how about both? Feasibility and outcomes from a single institution.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Review
- Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (India Chapter) and Indian rectal cancer expert group's practical consensus statements for surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Comparison of transanal total mesorectal excision and robotic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Outcomes of robotic low anterior resection versus transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.BJS open · 2021Article
- The Micro Hand S vs. da Vinci Surgical Robot-Assisted Surgery on Total Mesorectal Excision: Short-Term Outcomes Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
- Comparison of the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, open surgery, and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An overview of systematic reviews.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Review
- Role of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Transanal total mesorectal excision in the prone jackknife position without being conscious of the size of prostatic enlargement for lower rectal cancer.International cancer conference journal · 2020Article
- Transanal TME: new standard or fad?Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2019Review
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic surgery and transanal minimally invasive surgery are the two recently developed techniques, which can overcome the difficult pelvic dissection in conventional laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare the early cases of robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) using propensity score matching.
methodsThe first 40 cases of taTME and the first 80 sphincter-saving robotic total mesorectal resection for rectal cancer were selected from the prospectively collected database. Using propensity score matching, the outcomes of 40 matched cases of robotic TME were compared with the 40 cases of taTME.
resultsBefore matching, patients in the taTME group were significantly younger. The tumors were smaller but more distally located. Significantly more patients in the taTME group received preoperative chemoradiation. After matching, the two groups did not show any differences in gender, age, comorbidity, the level of tumors, and incidences of preoperative chemoradiation. The operating time was significantly shorter (254 vs. 170 min, p < 0.05) and the blood loss was less (50 vs. 150 ml, p = 0.002) in the taTME group. Conversion rate was 5% in both groups. There was no difference in the hospital stay, overall morbidity, the anastomotic leakage rate, and the urinary complication rate between the two groups. More patients in the taTME group did not require a separate abdominal incision. The distal margin, the number of lymph nodes examined, and the rate positive circumferential margin (0 vs. 5%, p = 0.494) were also similar between the two groups.
conclusionsBoth taTME and robotic surgery can achieve favorable outcomes in the rectal cancer resection. Comparison of the early experience of the two procedures with propensity score matching showed the taTME was associated with a shorter operating time, less blood loss, and a higher rate of transanal extraction of the specimen. Further evaluation by randomized trials is warranted.
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.