ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Implementation of robotic rectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional nationwide study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials with GRADE certainty rating.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Expedited Summary of the Clinical Evidence.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2024Pooled it
- Impact of BMI on robotic rectal cancer surgery versus three-dimensional laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a retrospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- The rise of robotics: Surgical approaches for rectal cancer over time.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Rise in Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Is Associated With Adoption of Robotic Surgery.Diseases of the colon and rectum · 2025Article
- Short-term results in a population based study indicate advantage for minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery versus open.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Role and Morbidity of Protective Ileostomy after Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer: One Centre Experience and Review of Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Implementation of totally robotic right hemicolectomy: lessons learned from a prospective cohort.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimAn increasing number of centers have implemented a robotic surgical program for rectal cancer. Several randomized controls trials have shown similar oncological and postoperative outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic resections. While introducing a robot rectal resection program seems safe, there are no data regarding implementation on a nationwide scale. Since 2018 robot resections are separately registered in the mandatory Dutch Colorectal Audit. The present study aims to evaluate the trend in the implementation of robotic resections (RR) for rectal cancer relative to laparoscopic rectal resections (LRR) in the Netherlands between 2018 and 2020 and to compare the differences in outcomes between the operative approaches.
methodsPatients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2018 and 2020 were selected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. The data included patient characteristics, disease characteristics, surgical procedure details, postoperative outcomes. The outcomes included any complication within 90 days after surgery; data were categorized according to surgical approach.
resultsBetween 2018 and 2020, 6330 patients were included in the analyses. 1146 patients underwent a RR (18%), 3312 patients a LRR (51%), 526 (8%) an open rectal resection, 641 a TaTME (10%), and 705 had a local resection (11%). The proportion of males and distal tumors was higher in the RR compared to the LRR. Over time, the proportion of robotic procedures increased from 15% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 13-16%) in 2018 to 22% (95% CI 20-24%) in 2020. Conversion rate was lower in the robotic group [4% (95% CI 3-5%) versus 7% (95% CI 6-8%)]. Anastomotic leakage rate was similar with 16%. Defunctioning ileostomies were more common in the RR group [42% (95% CI 38-46%) versus 29% (95% CI 26-31%)].
conclusionRectal resections are increasingly being performed through a robot-assisted approach in the Netherlands. The proportion of males and low rectal cancers was higher in RR compared to LRR. Overall outcomes were comparable, while conversion rate was lower in RR, the proportion of defunctioning ileostomies was higher compared to LRR.
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.