ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2023
Robotic versus laparoscopic approach for minimally invasive lateral pelvic lymph node dissection of advanced lower rectal cancer: a retrospective study comparing short-term outcomes.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 6 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological, perioperative, and survival-related outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic Beyond Total Mesorectal Excision (bTME) for locally advanced and recurrent anorectal cancer: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted extended mesorectal excision: a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review of perioperative and long-term outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted comparative laparoscopic surgery in lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection in locally advanced rectal cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Review
- Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Lower Rectal Cancer.Fukushima journal of medical science · 2025Article
- Learning curve analysis for prophylactic bilateral robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection for lower rectal cancer: a retrospective study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Locally-Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Cohort Study Comparing Perioperative Morbidity and Short-Term Oncological Outcomes.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Recurrence of rectal cancer on the pelvic sidewall after lateral lymph node dissection.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe importance of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LLND) for advanced low rectal cancer is gradually being recognized in Europe and the USA, where some patients were affected by uncontrolled lateral pelvic lymph node (LLNs) metastasis, even after total mesorectal excision (TME) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The purpose of this study was thus to compare robotic LLND (R-LLND) with laparoscopic (L-LLND) to clarify the safety and advantages of R-LLND.
methodsSixty patients were included in this single-institution retrospective study between January 2013 and July 2022. We compared the short-term outcomes of 27 patients who underwent R-LLND and 33 patients who underwent L-LLND.
resultsEn bloc LLND was performed in significantly more patients in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (48.1% vs. 15.2%; p = 0.006). The numbers of LLNs on the distal side of the internal iliac region (LN 263D) harvested were significantly higher in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (2 [0-9] vs. 1 [0-6]; p = 0.023). The total operative time was significantly longer in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (587 [460-876] vs. 544 [398-859]; p = 0.003); however, the LLND time was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.718). Postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups.
conclusionThe present study clarified the safety and technical feasibility of R-LLND with respect to L-LLND. Our findings suggest that the robotic approach offers a key advantage, allowing significantly more LLNs to be harvested from the distal side of the internal iliac region (LN 263D). Prospective clinical trials examining the oncological superiority of R-LLND are thus necessary in the near future.
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.