ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2021
[Robotic-assisted surgery of rectal cancer-Technique, limitations and results].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic vs. 3D laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study of short-term outcomes and functional recovery.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- The influence of socioeconomic aspects and hospital case volume on survival in colorectal cancer in Saxony, Germany.BMC cancer · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of oncological robotic-assisted rectal cancer resections is rapidly increasing in Germany and worldwide; however, the indications, technique and potential limitations of this surgical technique are still discussed. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe standardized modular surgical technique, the results in our clinic and the currently published evidence are presented.
resultsThe procedure should be divided into seven modules in terms of standardization and teaching. After the learning curve there are principally no limitations or contraindications. The robotic-assisted approach is superior to open surgery in the following points: blood loss, lymph node harvest, negative circumferential resection margin (CRM), complication rate and length of hospital stay. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy the conversion rate and postoperative sexual and bladder function disorders are decreased. The operating time is longer.
conclusionRobotic-assisted rectal cancer resection is firmly established and standardized. The technique is superior to open surgery and conventional laparoscopy in some important aspects and is developing into the standard for this disease.
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.