ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Lower conversion rate with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy; a national cohort study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. 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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Restorative resection in robot-assisted versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery for patients with obesity: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Staying minimally invasive: robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in a propensity-weighted Italian multicentre cohort.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
- Bibliometric visualization analysis of the application of artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal surgery recent 10 years.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery during institutional transition: a 10-year sequential cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Towards safer colorectal surgery worldwide: Outcomes and benchmarks from the ESCP CORREA 2022 audit.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- Mapping the knowledge landscape of robotic colorectal cancer surgery: a visualization study.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
- Total Mesorectal Excision with New Robotic Platforms: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer in patients with varied body mass indexes: evaluating of short-term outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Comparison of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic rectal surgery for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis using the Japanese Nationwide diagnosis procedure combination database.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Article
- Elective robotic partial colon and rectal resections: series of 170 consecutive robot procedures involving the Da Vinci Xi robot by a community general surgeon.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer: A Narrative Review and Description of the Technique.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Healthcare Resource Utilization After Surgical Treatment of Cancer: Value of Minimally Invasive Surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Learning Curve of Robotic-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConversion from laparoscopic to open access colorectal surgery is associated with a poorer postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to assess conversion rates and outcomes after standard laparoscopic rectal resection (LR) and robotic laparoscopic rectal resection (RR).
methodsA national 5-year cohort study utilizing prospectively recorded data on patients who underwent elective major laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. Data were retrieved from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry. Primary end point was conversion rate. Secondary end points were postoperative complications within 30 days and histopathological results. Chi-square test, two-sided T test, and Mann-Whitney U test were used for univariable analyses. Both univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the relations between different predictors and outcomes, and propensity score matching was performed to address potential treatment assignment bias.
resultsA total of 1284 patients were included, of whom 375 underwent RR and 909 LR. Conversion rate was 8 out of 375 (2.1%) for RR compared with 87 out of 909 (9.6%) for LR (p < 0.001). RR was associated with reduced risk for conversion compared with LR (aOR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10-0.46). There were no other outcome differences between RR and LR. Factors associated with increased risk for conversion were male gender, severe cardiac disease and BMI > 30. Conversion was associated with higher rates of major complications (20 out of 95 (21.2%) vs 135 out of 1189 (11.4%) p = 0.005), reoperations (13 out of 95 (13.7%) vs 93 out of 1189 (7.1%) p = 0.020), and longer hospital stay (median 8 days vs 6 days, p = 0.001).
conclusionConversion rate was lower with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy. Conversions were associated with higher rates of postoperative complications.
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.