ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Trends in utilization, conversion rates, and outcomes for minimally invasive approaches to non-metastatic rectal cancer: a national cancer database analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Safety and short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer in the very elderly (≥ 85 Years): a multicenter propensity score-matched study.Surgery today · 2026Article
- The importance of procedural indication in predicting operative time for elective robotic colon surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: factors influencing approach Selection, predictors of surgical Conversion and their implications for patient outcomes.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- The rise of robotics: Surgical approaches for rectal cancer over time.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive converted to open versus upfront open surgeries for rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Robotic-assisted surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes: the Mayo Clinic experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Perioperative outcomes for single-port robotic versus single-incision laparoscopic surgery: a comparative analysis in colorectal cancer surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Robotic surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer: Review of the current literature.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Review
- Robotic colorectal surgery in elderly patients: A single-centre experience.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2022Article
- Article
- Does conversion during minimally invasive rectal surgery for cancer have an impact on short-term and oncologic outcomes? Results of a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Article
- The Usefulness of Robot-assisted Surgery for Elderly Colorectal Cancer Patients.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
- Demographic characteristics and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic colon cancer surgeries at a newly developed cancer center in Peshawar, Pakistan.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study examined utilization and conversion rates for robotic and laparoscopic approaches to non-metastatic rectal cancer. Secondary aims were to examine short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent conversion to laparotomy from each approach.
methodsThe National Cancer Database (NCDB) was reviewed for all cases of non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction who underwent surgical resection from 2010 to 2016. Utilization rates of robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches were examined. Patients were split into cohorts by approach. Subgroup analyses were performed by primary tumor site and surgical procedure. Multivariable analysis was performed by multivariable logistic regression for binary outcomes and multivariable general linear models for continuous outcomes. Survival analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier and multivariable cox-proportional hazards regression.
resultsFrom 2010 to 2016, there was a statistically significant increase in utilization of the robotic and laparoscopic approaches over the study period and a statistically significant decrease in utilization of the open approach. The conversion rates for robotic and laparoscopic cohorts were 7.0% and 15.7%, p < 0.0001. Subgroup analysis revealed statistically lower conversion rates between robotic and laparoscopic approaches for rectosigmoid and rectal tumors and for LAR and APR. Converted cohorts had statistically significant higher odds of short term mortality than the non-converted cohorts (p < 0.05).Laparoscopic conversion had statistically higher odds of positive margins (p < 0.0001) and 30-day unplanned readmission (p < 0.0001) than the laparoscopic non-conversion. Increased adjusted mortality hazard was seen for converted laparoscopy relative to non-converted laparoscopy (p = 0.0019).
conclusionFrom 2010 to 2016, there was a significant increase in utilization of minimally invasive approaches to surgical management of non-metastatic rectal cancer. A robotic approach demonstrated decreased conversion rates than a laparoscopic approach at the rectosigmoid junction and rectum and for LAR and APR. Improved outcomes were seen in the minimally invasive cohorts compared to those that converted to laparotomy.
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.