ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2023
Propensity matched analysis of robotic and laparoscopic operations for mid-low rectal cancer: short-term comparison of anal function and oncological outcomes.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of perioperative outcomes for da Vinci robotic-assisted, laparoscopic and open surgery in oncologic procedures: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of evidence from China.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
- Comparison of robotic‑assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Learning curve analysis of laparoscopic low anterior resection using the ArtiSential multi-articulating device: a multicenter retrospective cohort study with pooled analysis (STARC trial).Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2026Article
- Optimal surgical approach for cT3/T4 rectal cancer post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: robotic surgery versus TaTME guided by superior pelvic diaphragm localization.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a predictive model for anastomotic complications with mid-low rectal cancer based on propensity score matching analysis-Does robotic surgery have an advantage?Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Learning Curve on Lymph Nodes Retrieval and Postoperative Length of Hospital Stay in Robotic Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective, Observational Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in robotic mid-low rectal cancer surgery: a comparative study from a single-center.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for visceral obesity in mid-low rectal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive and open radical resection for rectal cancer: comparison of short-term outcomes in elderly/frail patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer in patients with varied body mass indexes: evaluating of short-term outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Impact of visceral fat area on short-term outcomes in robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, while in some respects equivalent or even preferable to open surgery, is challenged in specific conditions where the tumor is located in the middle and lower third of the rectum. Robotic surgery equipped with a superior arm of machinery and gained better visualization can compensate for the deficiency of the laparoscopic approach. This study adopted a propensity matched analysis to compare the functional and oncological short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery. All patients who underwent proctectomy have been collected prospectively between December 2019 and November 2022. After censoring for inclusion criteria, we performed a propensity matching analysis. A detailed collection of post-operative examination indicators was performed, while the K-M survival curves were plotted to analyze post-operative oncology outcomes. The LARS scale was designed to evaluate the anal function of patients in the form of questionnaires. Totally, 215 patients underwent robotic operations while 1011 patients selected laparoscopic operations. Patients matched 1∶1 by propensity score were divided into the robotic and laparoscopic groups, 210 cases were included in each group. All patients underwent a follow-up for a median period of 18.3 months. Robotic surgery was connected with an enhanced recovery including the earlier time to first flatus passage without ileostomy (P = 0.050), the earlier time to liquid diet without ileostomy (P = 0.040), lower incidence of urinary retention (P = 0.043), better anal function 1 month after LAR without ileostomy (P < 0.001), longer operative time (\P = 0.042), compared with laparoscopic operations. The oncological outcomes and occurrence of other complications were comparable between the two approaches. For mid-low rectal cancer, robotic surgery could be recognized as an effective technique with identical short-term outcomes of oncology and better anal function in comparison to laparoscopic surgery. However, multi-center studies with larger samples are expected to validate the long-term outcomes of robotic surgery.
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.