ReviewCureus2023
Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approaches to Treat Colorectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Literature.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comprehensive Overview of Molecular, Imaging, and Therapeutic Challenges in Rectal Mucinous Adenocarcinoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in patients with heart failure: a national readmission database analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A modified Delphi consensus on fusion (laparoscopic and robotic) approaches to colorectal surgery in Asia-Pacific.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Review
- Short-term outcomes and feasibility of robotic-assisted surgery for pT4 colorectal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Failure mode and effects analysis nursing model improves recovery and quality of life post-laparoscopic extended radical colectomy for colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Article
- Two-portWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Article
- Molecular Basis, Diagnostic Approaches, and Therapeutic Strategies in Colorectal Cancer-Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Preoperative CT-derived sarcopenia as a predictor of postoperative complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection for non-metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Article
- Trends and outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery: a multicenter cross-sectional study of minimally invasive versus open techniques in Germany.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Advancements in Surgical Approaches for Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- The gut barrier as a gatekeeper in colorectal cancer treatment.Oncotarget · 2024Review
- Diagnostic Challenges and Treatment Options for Mucocle of the Appendix: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum in minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis.Gastroenterology report · 2024Review
- Article
- Surgical Treatment of Gastrointestinal Cancers.Cancers · 2023Article
- Grand challenges in colorectal and proctological surgery.Frontiers in 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgery is usually required to treat colorectal cancer (CRC). Medical technology has advanced, providing various approaches to tackle this disease. Different surgeries are available, such as laparoscopic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery has several benefits including reduced blood loss and shorter recovery time. It can also improve lung function and minimize complications. However, it requires more time to perform and has a higher risk of complications during the procedure. Robotic surgery provides a three-dimensional view of the surgical area allowing for greater precision in rectal surgeries and access to difficult-to-reach pelvic regions. This method utilizes robotics technology which reduces surgical time and speeds up recovery for patients. There are various surgical options available for treating CRC; however, laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery offer unique advantages despite their own drawbacks. As technology continues to evolve, medical techniques will continue improving existing methods while providing new options resulting in better outcomes for patients. Compared to laparoscopy, robotic surgery has a lower rate of operative conversions and a shorter learning curve. However, it also has some drawbacks, such as a longer docking time, lack of tactile sensation, and higher cost. Therefore, the choice of surgical method should depend on patient characteristics, surgeon preference and expertise, and available resources. Currently, specialized centers offer robotic surgeries which are more expensive and take longer compared to open and laparoscopic approaches. Nonetheless, they are considered safe and feasible when compared to traditional surgery. Short-term outcomes for robotic surgeries are better, while long-term postoperative complication rates remain similar. However, there is a need for additional well-defined randomized control trials conducted across multiple centers to validate the use of robotic surgery over open and laparoscopic approaches. Improving patient care and outcomes is the objective of this comprehensive literature overview on surgical approaches for CRC.
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.