ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2019
A Comparison of Pathologic Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Resections for Rectal Cancer Using the ACS-NSQIP Proctectomy-Targeted Database: a Propensity Score Analysis.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing the efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery in obese patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Influence of steep Trendelenburg position on postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparison of pathologic outcomes of robotic and open resections for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Achieving Quality Outcomes at reduced costs in Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Tertiary Centre's experience with 330 Robotic Rectal Cancer resections.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Review
- Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal surgery in obese and morbidly obese patients: ACS-NSQIP analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Assessing the role of robotic proctectomy in obese patients: a contemporary NSQIP analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Article
- Review
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Oncological Outcomes.The Permanente journal · 2021Review
- Predictors and Consequences of Unplanned Conversion to Open During Robotic Colectomy: An ACS-NSQIP Database Analysis.Hawai'i journal of health & social welfare · 2021Article
- Evolution of Robotic Surgery in a Colorectal Cancer Unit in India.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2020Article
- The volume-outcome relationship in robotic protectectomy: does center volume matter? Results of a national cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Role of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
- [Innovations in surgery-How can new technologies be safely implemented in the clinical practice?]Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2020Review
- The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery.Current gastroenterology reports · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is ongoing debate regarding the benefits of minimally invasive techniques for rectal cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to compare pathologic outcomes of patients who underwent rectal cancer resection by open surgery, laparoscopy, and robotic surgery using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) proctectomy-targeted database.
methodsAll patients from the 2016 ACS-NSQIP proctectomy-targeted database who underwent elective proctectomy for rectal cancer were identified. Patients were divided into three groups based on initial operative approach: open surgery, laparoscopy, and robotic surgery. Pathologic and 30-day clinical outcomes were then compared between the groups. A propensity score analysis was performed to control for confounders, and adjusted odds ratios for pathologic outcomes were reported.
resultsA total of 578 patients were included-211 (36.5%) in the open group, 213 (36.9%) in the laparoscopic group, and 154 (26.6%) in the robotic group. Conversion to open surgery was more common among laparoscopic cases compared to robotic cases (15.0% vs. 6.5%, respectively; p = 0.011). Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) was observed in 4.7%, 3.8%, and 5.2% (p = 0.79) of open, laparoscopic, and robotic resections, respectively. Propensity score adjusted odds ratios for positive CRM (open surgery as a reference group) were 0.70 (0.26-1.85, p = 0.47) for laparoscopy and 1.03 (0.39-2.70, p = 0.96) for robotic surgery.
conclusionsThe use of minimally invasive surgical techniques for rectal cancer surgery does not appear to confer worse pathologic outcomes.
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.