ReviewAnnals of surgical treatment and research2022
Current status and role of robotic approach in patients with low-lying rectal cancer.
Review in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Urinary and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Current Evidence in Robotic Colorectal Surgery.Cancers · 2025Review
- Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Fluorescence-guided colorectal surgery: applications, clinical results, and protocols.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2023Review
- Single-portAnnals of surgical treatment and research · 2023Article
- Global trends and hotspots in research of robotic surgery in oncology: A bibliometric and visual analysis from 2002 to 2021.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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Utilization of robotic surgical systems has increased over the years. Robotic surgery is presumed to have advantages of enhanced visualization, improved dexterity, and reduced tremor, which is purported to be more suitable for rectal cancer surgery in a confined space than laparoscopic or open surgery. However, evidence supporting improved clinical and oncologic outcomes after robotic surgery remains controversial and limited despite the widespread adoption of robotic surgical systems. To date, numerous observational studies and a few randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate that short-term, oncological, and functional outcomes after a robotic surgery are superior to those of laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer patients. The objective of this review is to summarize the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on low-lying rectal cancer.
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.