Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35438444›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2022

Robotic Surgery in Rectal Cancer: Potential, Challenges, and Opportunities.

Ge Liu, Shoujia Zhang, Yan Zhang, Xiaoqing Fu, Xinlu Liu

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Could robotic-assisted surgery reduce mesh-related complications after ventral mesh rectopexy? Experience of a tertiary centre and systematic review of the literature.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ge Liu1st Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, No. 193 Union Road, Dalian City, Liaoning Province, People's Republic of China.
Shoujia Zhang1st Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, No. 193 Union Road, Dalian City, Liaoning Province, People's Republic of China.
Yan ZhangOperating Room, The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, No. 193 Union Road, Dalian City, Liaoning Province, People's Republic of China.
Xiaoqing FuOperating Room, The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, No. 193 Union Road, Dalian City, Liaoning Province, People's Republic of China.
Xinlu Liu1st Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, No. 193 Union Road, Dalian City, Liaoning Province, People's Republic of China. liuxinlu86@163.com.
First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University · CNDalian Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementThe current standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer is based on a multimodal comprehensive treatment combined with preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiation and complete surgical resection of the entire mesorectal cancer. For ultra-low cases and cases with lateral lymph node metastasis, due to limitations in laparoscopic technology, the difficulties of operation and incidence of intraoperative complications are always difficult to overcome. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer is an emerging technique that can overcome some of the technical drawbacks posed by conventional laparoscopic approaches, improving the scope and effect of radical operations. However, evidence from the literature regarding its oncological safety and clinical outcomes is still lacking. This brief review summarized the current status of robotic technology in rectal cancer therapy from the perspective of several mainstream surgical methods, including robotic total mesorectal excision (TME), robotic transanal TME, robotic lateral lymph node dissection, and artificial intelligence, focusing on the developmental direction of robotic approach in the field of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer in the future.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresArtificial IntelligenceHumansRectumTreatment OutcomeColorectal cancerRLLNDRobotic surgeryRTaTMERTME

Identifiers

PMID35438444
PMCPMC9174118
OpenAlexW4224231835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.