ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Short- and Long-Term Outcome of Laparoscopic- versus Robotic-Assisted Right Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 7 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Short-term surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA): a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 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
- Pooled it
- Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for patients ≥ 65 years of age: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review of the evidence.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches for right colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Pooled it
- Influence of surgical start time on the quality of surgery for middle and low rectal cancer: a post hoc analysis of the real trial.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Trial
- Feasibility of robotic-assisted right colectomy using the "squeezing approach".Surgery today · 2026Article
- Comparison of surgical outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: a single-center cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Approaches-A Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Short-Term Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Colectomy for Colon Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Colectomy: Findings on Short-Term Outcomes From A Multi-Institutional Propensity Score-Matched Study.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Comparison of the short-term and mid-term outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for splenic flexure colon cancer.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Article
- Benchmarking to validate the implementation of a robotic colorectal cancer surgery program. Proposal for a new method to createbenchmarks.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Observational
- Review
- Current Evidence in Robotic Colorectal Surgery.Cancers · 2025Review
- Feasibility of the hinotori™ surgical robot system in right colectomy: a propensity score matching study.Surgical endoscopy · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is a rapidly growing literature available on right hemicolectomy comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to revise current comparative literature systematically. Methods: A systematic review of comparative studies published between 2000 to 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Embase was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity, mortality and long-term oncological results. Secondary endpoints consist of blood loss, conversion rates, complications, time to first flatus, hospital stay and incisional hernia rate. Results: 25 of 322 studies were considered for data extraction. A total of 16,099 individual patients who underwent RRC (n = 1842) or LRC (n = 14,257) between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LRC group (LRC 165.31 min ± 43.08 vs. RRC 207.38 min ± 189.13, MD: −42.01 (95% CI: −51.06−32.96), p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the RRC group (LRC 63.57 ± 35.21 vs. RRC 53.62 ± 34.02, MD: 10.03 (95% CI: 1.61−18.45), p = 0.02) as well as conversion rate (LRC 1155/11,629 vs. RRC 94/1534, OR: 1.65 (1.28−2.13), p < 0.001) and hospital stay (LRC 6.15 ± 31.77 vs. RRC 5.31 ± 1.65, MD: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.29−1.38), p = 0.003). Oncological long-term results did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: The advantages of robotic colorectal procedures were clearly demonstrated. RRC can be regarded as safe and feasible. Most of the included studies were retrospective with a limited level of evidence. Further randomized trials would be suitable.
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.