ArticleBJS open2021
Outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer: propensity-matched analysis of the National Clinical Database in Japan.
Article in BJS open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 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
56 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 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
- Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2024 for the treatment of colorectal cancer.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Guideline
- Robotic versus laparoscopic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection in locally advanced rectal cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Feasibility of robotic-assisted surgery in advanced rectal cancer: a multicentre prospective phase II study (VITRUVIANO trial).BJS open · 2024Trial
- Clinical Implementation and Perioperative Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Pelvic Exenteration for Primary Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Japanese Experience.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted colectomy is associated with improved perioperative outcomes and favorable survival in stage I-III colon cancer: a nationwide overlap-weighted analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Economic outcomes of robot-assisted surgery for gastric and colorectal cancer at a general hospital: a real-world analysis of the volume-cost dilemma.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Enhancing Surgical Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness With TaTME-Combined Robot-Assisted Surgery for Lower Rectal Cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- [Surgical robot-assisted submandibular gland excision through retroauricular hairline approach: three case reports].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2026Article
- Propensity score matched analysis of short-term outcomes in rectal cancer robotic surgery: Hugo RAS versus da Vinci systems.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Phase-specific impact of patient anatomy on rectal cancer surgery: robotic assistance neutralizes dissection difficulty.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Experience with hinotoriJournal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2026Article
- Robotic surgery enhances patients' survival in rectal cancer: a propensity score-weighted multicenter cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Single-incision plus one robot-assisted surgery (SIPORS) using the Hugo robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) system for rectal cancer.Annals of coloproctology · 2025Article
- A rare and complex ileocolic vein variant managed with robotic surgery: Achieving surgical excellence in right colon cancer resection - A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2025Article
- Improved 5-year survival with robot-assisted resection for locally advanced rectal cancer compared to laparoscopic and open surgery: A real-world cohort study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision using a cranial approach: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has several advantages over conventional laparoscopy. However, population-based comparative studies for low anterior resection are limited. This article aimed to compare peri-operative results of robot-assisted low anterior resection (RALAR) and laparoscopy.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used data from patients treated with RALAR or conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (CLLAR) between October 2018 and December 2019, as recorded in the Japanese National Clinical Database, a data set registering clinical information, perioperative outcomes, and mortality. Of note, the registry does not include information on the tumour location (centimetres from the anal verge) and diverting stoma creation. Perioperative outcomes, including rate of conversion to open surgery, were compared between RALAR and CLLAR groups. Confounding factors were adjusted for using propensity score matching.
resultsOf 21 415 patients treated during the study interval, 20 220 were reviewed. Two homogeneous groups of 2843 patients were created by propensity score matching. The conversion rate to open surgery was significantly lower in the RALAR group than in the CLLAR group (0.7 versus 2.0 per cent; P < 0.001). The RALAR group had a longer operating time (median: 352 versus 283 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (15 versus 20 ml; P < 0.001), a lower in-hospital mortality rate (0.1 versus 0.5 per cent; P = 0.007), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median: 13 versus 14 days; P < 0.001) compared with the CLLAR group. The CLLAR group had a lower rate of readmission within 30 days (2.4 versus 3.3 per cent; P = 0.045).
conclusionThese data highlight the reduced conversion rate, in-hospital mortality rate, intraoperative blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay for rectal cancer surgery in patients treated using robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with laparoscopic low anterior resection.
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.