Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37313091›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approaches to Treat Colorectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Literature.

Jessica Vilsan, Sai Aditya Maddineni, Nayab Ahsan, Midhun Mathew, Nikhila Chilakuri, Nilay Yadav, Eduardo J Munoz, Muhammad A Nadeem, Kiran Abbas, Waleed Razzaq and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Two-portWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Jessica VilsanSurgery, Dr Bhausaheb Sardesai Talegaon Rural Hospital, Pune, IND.
Sai Aditya MaddineniSurgery, Avalon University School of Medicine, Willemstad, CUW.
Nayab AhsanInternal Medicine, Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, PAK.
Midhun MathewInternal Medicine, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, USA.
Nikhila ChilakuriMedicine, Avalon University School of Medicine, Willemstad, CUW.
Nilay YadavGeneral Physician, Rama Medical College, Kanpur, IND.
Eduardo J MunozSurgery, Montemorelos University, Montemorelos, MEX.
Muhammad A NadeemMedicine and Surgery, Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, PAK.
Kiran AbbasCommunity Health Sciences, Aga Khan University, Karachi, PAK.
Waleed RazzaqInternal Medicine, Services Hospital Lahore, Lahore, PAK.
Zain U AbdinMedicine, District Headquarter Hospital, Faisalabad, PAK.
Moiz AhmedCardiology, National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Karachi, PAK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

colorectal cancerlaparoscopic surgerynatural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (notes)robotic surgerysingle-incision laparoscopic surgerysurgical approaches

Identifiers

PMID37313091
PMCPMC10259746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.