ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic rectal surgery-from the real word data of 1145 consecutive cases in China.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of an established colorectal robotic programme at an NHS district general hospital: audit of outcomes and systematic review of published data.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Robotic surgery enhances patients' survival in rectal cancer: a propensity score-weighted multicenter cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Article
- The Review of Modified Intersphincteric Resection in the Treatment of Ultra-Low Rectal Cancer.Current treatment options in oncology · 2025Review
- Analysis of the impact on sexual function in early-onset overweight male patients with rectal cancer following robotic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Outcomes in robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery in a newly established colorectal tertiary center: a retrospective comparative cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- How to use the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data: research design and methodology.Military Medical Research · 2023Review
- Long-term outcomes of upfront robotic rectal cancer surgery: a single-center, retrospective cohort study in Japan.Surgery today · 2023Article
- Comparison between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2022Article
- Article
- The double bipolar method for robotic total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer.Surgery today · 2022Observational
- Postoperative complications after robotic resection of colorectal cancer: An analysis based on 5-year experience at a large-scale center.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Article
- [Epidural block associated with improved long-term survival after surgery for colorectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2021Article
- Single-docking robotic assisted proctectomy for rectal cancer below peritoneal reflection: a propensity score matching analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes in Mid and Low Rectal Cancer With Robotic Surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Role of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to a limited patient sample size, substantial data on robotic rectal resection (RRR) is lacking. Here, we reported a large consecutive cases from the real word data to assess the safety and efficacy of RRR.
methodsFrom September 2010 to June 2017, a total of 1145 consecutive RRR procedures were performed in patients with stage I-IV disease. We conducted an analysis based on information from a prospectively designed database to evaluate surgical outcomes, urogenital function, and long-term oncological outcomes.
resultsOf three types of RRR performed, 227 (24.2%) were abdominoperineal resections, 865 (75.5%) were anterior resections, and 3 (0.3%) were Hartmann. Conversion to an open procedure occurred in 5.9% of patients. The overall positive circumferential margin rate was 1.3%. Surgical complication rate and mortality were 16.2% and 0.8% within 30 days of surgery, respectively. Mean hospital stay after surgery and hospital cost were 6.3 ± 2.9 days and 10442.5 ± 3321.5 US dollars, respectively. Risk factors for surgical complications included male gender, tumor location (mid-low rectum), combined organ resection, and clinical T category (cT3-4). Urinary function and general sexual satisfaction decreased significantly 1 month after surgery for both sexes. Subsequently, both parameters increased progressively, and the values 1 year after surgery were comparable to those measured before surgery. At a median follow-up of 34.6 months, local recurrence and distant metastases occurred in 2.3% and 21.1% of patients, respectively.
conclusionsRobotic rectal resection was safe with preserved urogenital function and arrived equivalent oncological outcomes in a nonselected group of patients with rectal cancer.
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.