ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Outcomes in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection compared to open: a propensity-matched analysis of the NCDB (2010-2015).
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 13 papers, 3 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of laparoscopic intracorporeal reinforcing sutures to prevent anastomotic leakage: A meta-analysis.Saudi medical journal · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Circumferential resection margin status and longterm survival outcomes following robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgical resection for locally-advanced rectal cancer: a National Cancer Database (NCDB) study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- The rise of robotics: Surgical approaches for rectal cancer over time.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Comparison of short-term outcomes for robotic rectal surgery between the hinotori™ surgical robot system and da Vinci surgical system: a single-center retrospective study using propensity score matching analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Treatment Options for Distal Rectal Cancer in the Era of Organ Preservation.Current treatment options in oncology · 2024Review
- Prevalence and safety of robotic surgery for gastrointestinal malignant tumors in Japan.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2022Article
- Real-world comparison of curative open, laparoscopic and robotic resections for sigmoid and rectal cancer-single center experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Article
- Operative Approach Does Not Impact Radial Margin Positivity in Distal Rectal Cancer.World journal of surgery · 2021Article
- Predictors and Consequences of Unplanned Conversion to Open During Robotic Colectomy: An ACS-NSQIP Database Analysis.Hawai'i journal of health & social welfare · 2021Article
- Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive resection of rectal cancer is controversial due to concerns of the oncologic efficacy and the difficulties of a laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME).
methodsUsing the National Cancer Database (NCDB), for the period 2010-2015, perioperative outcomes and overall survival (OS) in patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection (LLAR or RLAR) were compared to open LAR (OLAR) after propensity score matching.
results26,047 patients underwent LAR: 4062 (16%) RLAR, 9236 (35%) LLAR, and 12,749 (49%) OLAR. Patient and clinical tumor characteristics were similar between groups after matching. The conversion rates among patients undergoing LLAR and RLAR were 15% and 8%, respectively. In matched OLAR and LLAR patients, longitudinal and circumferential resection margins (CRM) were positive in 5.4% and 3.2% (p < 0.001) and 5.5% and 4.1% (p < 0.001); length of stay was 6 and 5 days, (p < 0.001); readmission was required in 6.5% and 7.0% (p = 0.112); OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 95.5%, 83.7%, and 72.0% and 95.9%, 86.3%, and 76.4%, respectively (p < 0.001). In matched OLAR and RLAR patients, longitudinal and CRM were positive in 5.4% and 3.2% (p < 0.001) and 5.5% and 3.9% (p < 0.001); length of stay was 6 and 5 days (p < 0.001); readmission was required in 6.1% and 7.9%, (p = 0.010); and OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96.2%, 86.5%, and 77.1% and 97.5%, 89.4%, and 79.7%, respectively (p = 0.001).
conclusionsIn this national sample of propensity matched patients with rectal cancer who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic sphincter-saving rectal resection, only small differences in terms of resection margin status, length of stay, readmission, and overall survival were revealed. With acknowledgement of the limitations introduced by selection bias, our data indicate that each of the evaluated operative techniques results in acceptable outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31728754What 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.