ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2020
Robotic-
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of perioperative outcomes for da Vinci robotic-assisted, laparoscopic and open surgery in oncologic procedures: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of evidence from China.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Influence of steep Trendelenburg position on postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Pooled it
- The application value of Da Vinci linear powered stapler SureForm in robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: a prospective randomized clinical trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Analysis of the impact on sexual function in early-onset overweight male patients with rectal cancer following robotic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- Analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of hand-sewn anastomosis for the digestive tract with Da Vinci robot in rectal cancer surgery.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Comparison of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in short-terms outcomes of middle rectal cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Primary tumor location impacts survival in colorectal cancer patients after primary resection: a population‑based propensity score matching cohort study.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
- Assessing the role of robotic proctectomy in obese patients: a contemporary NSQIP analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Article
- Article
- Operative and Survival Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Elderly and Very Elderly Patients: A Study in a Tertiary Hospital in South Korea.Journal of oncology · 2022Article
- 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
- Role of minimally invasive techniques in gastrointestinal surgery: Current status and future perspectives.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Review
- Effects of laparoscopic radical surgery in the treatment of colorectal cancer and correlations of VEGF and TGF-β1 with prognosis.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- RoboticIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReports in the field of robotic surgery for rectal cancer are increasing year by year. However, most of these studies enroll patients at a relatively early stage and have small sample sizes. In fact, studies only on patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and with relatively large sample sizes are lacking.
aimTo investigate whether the short-term outcomes differed between robotic-assisted proctectomy (RAP) and laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy (LAP) for LARC.
methodsThe clinicopathological data of patients with LARC who underwent robotic- or laparoscopic-assisted radical surgery between January 2015 and October 2019 were collected retrospectively. To reduce patient selection bias, we used the clinical baseline characteristics of the two groups of patients as covariates for propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe clinical features were well matched in the PSM cohort. Compared with the LAP group, the RAP group had less intraoperative blood loss, lower volume of pelvic cavity drainage, less time to remove the pelvic drainage tube and urinary catheter, longer distal resection margin and lower rates of conversion (
conclusionThis retrospective study indicated that RAP is a safe and feasible method for LARC with better short-term outcomes than LAP, but we have to admit that the clinically significant of part of indicators are relatively small in the practical situation.
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.