ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2024
A comparative study of the pathological outcomes of robot-assisted versus open surgery for rectal cancer.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can robotic surgery lead the way in the treatment of rectal cancer?Annals of coloproctology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe use of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is increasing, but the pathological outcomes have not been fully clarified. We compared the surgical and pathological outcomes between robot-assisted and open surgery in specimens from patients operated on for rectal cancer.
methodsAll patients who underwent resection for rectal cancer from 2016 to 2018 were included (n=137). Specimens were divided into 3 sections to analyze the pathology of the lymph nodes.
resultsThe total specimen lengths were shorter in the robot-assisted group than in the open surgery group (mean±standard deviation: 29.1±8.6 cm vs. 33.8±9.9 cm, P=0.004) because of a shorter proximal resection margin (21.7±8.7 cm vs. 26.4±10.6 cm, P=0.006). The number of recruited lymph nodes (35.8±21.8 vs. 39.6±16.5, P=0.604) and arterial vessel length (8.84±2.6 cm vs. 8.78±2.4 cm, P=0.891) did not differ significantly between the 2 surgical approaches. Lymph node metastases were found in 33 of 137 samples (24.1%), but the numbers did not differ significantly between the procedures. Among these 33 cases, metastatic lymph nodes were located in the mesorectum (75.8%), in the sigmoid colon mesentery (33.3%), and at the arterial ligation site of the inferior mesenteric artery (12.1%). The circumferential resection margin and the proportion of complete mesorectal fascia were comparable between the groups.
conclusionThere were no significant differences between the 2 surgical approaches regarding arterial vessel length, recruitment of lymph node metastases, and resection margins.
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.